Reed v. Reed

Background

A young boy died in Idaho, and his separated adoptive parents each asked the probate court to be named administrator of his small estate. The probate court followed an Idaho statute that listed eligible relatives and then said that when people of the same class both apply, men must be preferred to women. The court appointed the father because he was male. The mother appealed, arguing the law treated her differently simply because of her sex.

Reasoning

The main question was whether giving automatic preference to men over women for estate administration is consistent with the Constitution’s rule that people must be treated equally under the law. The Supreme Court examined the state law and agreed that the father and mother were in the same entitlement class under the state probate code. The Court held that the sex-based preference was arbitrary for the statute’s purpose and therefore could not stand against the Constitution’s equal-treatment requirement. The Court reversed the Idaho Supreme Court and said the mandatory male preference violates equal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Real world impact

As a result, probate courts cannot automatically pick a man over a woman simply because of sex when both are equally entitled. The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with the decision. The opinion also notes that Idaho later adopted a new probate code, effective July 1, 1972, which eliminates the mandatory male preference.