Orr v. Orr
Facts
An Alabama divorce decree entered in 1974 required William Orr to pay Lillian Orr $1,240 per month in alimony. In 1976, Mrs. Orr initiated a contempt proceeding alleging that Mr. Orr was behind on his payments. At the contempt hearing, Mr. Orr argued that Alabama's alimony statutes were unconstitutional because they authorized alimony awards against husbands but never against wives. The Alabama courts upheld the statutes and entered judgment against him for back alimony and attorney fees.
Issue
Whether Alabama statutes that authorize courts to impose alimony obligations on husbands, but not on wives, violate the Equal Protection Clause. As a preliminary matter, the Court also addressed whether Mr. Orr had standing and whether any state-law procedural or contractual issues barred federal review.
Rule
A statutory gender classification is subject to Equal Protection scrutiny and is valid only if it serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Where individualized hearings already determine the relevant facts, a State may not rely on sex as a proxy for need or past discrimination when a gender-neutral approach would serve the same objectives equally well and without reinforcing stereotypes.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If a husband ordered to pay support challenges the statute under the Equal Protection Clause, what is the strongest argument that the statute is unconstitutional?