Summary
The Supreme Court held that Alabama's alimony statutes, which impose alimony obligations solely on husbands and not wives, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that using sex as a proxy for financial need or as compensation for past discrimination was not substantially related to the state's objectives, especially since individualized hearings could determine actual need without gender-based classifications. The judgment against the husband was reversed and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Alabama's alimony statutes that impose alimony on husbands but not wives violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holdings
- Alabama's alimony statutes are unconstitutional because the gender classification fails to serve an important governmental objective and is not substantially related to that objective.
Key quotations
“The classification expressly discriminates against men rather than women does not protect it from scrutiny.” (at 277)
“To withstand scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” (at 277)
Factual background
William Orr was ordered by an Alabama divorce decree to pay his former wife Lillian Orr $1,240 per month in alimony. He challenged Alabama's alimony statutes, which allow alimony only against husbands, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Procedural history
The Alabama Circuit Court denied Orr's motion to declare the alimony statutes unconstitutional and entered a judgment for back alimony. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the statutes. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari and then quashed it as improvidently granted. Orr appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Remand instructions
Alabama courts are instructed to determine any remaining state‑law issues, including whether Orr’s stipulated agreement creates a continuing alimony obligation.