Rainey v. Chever

Background

A Georgia law was changed to deny inheritance to a father (or his paternal kin) of a child born out of wedlock if the father failed to treat the child as his own or refused to provide support. A mother who raised her son for twenty years challenged the father’s claim after the child died. The father had little contact with his son, never legitimated him, and sued for damages after the son’s death. Lower courts and the Georgia Supreme Court held the statute facially violated the Equal Protection Clauses because it imposed the support-related condition only on fathers and not on mothers.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the law drew an unconstitutional gender-based distinction and what level of review that distinction required. The dissent argues the Georgia high court erred by applying heightened scrutiny and treating the statute as a gender stereotype. Drawing on prior U.S. cases about parental rights and out-of-wedlock children, the dissenting Justice said the law reasonably distinguishes between fathers who have supported or established a relationship with a child and fathers who have not, and that earlier Supreme Court decisions support treating such statutes more deferentially.

Real world impact

Because the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision stands. That ruling calls into doubt the validity of similar statutes in many other States that condition inheritance on fathers’ support or legitimation. The denial leaves in place a rule limiting absent fathers’ inheritance rights in Georgia while similar laws elsewhere could face legal uncertainty.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, dissented from the Court’s refusal to review, arguing the issue is important, conflicts with prior decisions, and affects many States with comparable statutes.