404 U.S. 71 (1971)
In 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a landmark decision in Reed v. Reed, marking the first time it applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to void a law that discriminated on the basis of gender.
Does a state law that discriminates between individuals based on gender violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
A state statute that categorically discriminates based on gender must satisfy the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is unconstitutional if it arbitrarily prefers one gender over another without serving a legitimate government interest.
Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Idaho statute's preference for males over females as estate administrators was unconstitutional gender discrimination, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Reed v. Reed is significant as it set a precedent for challenging gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. It was the first time the Supreme Court invalidated a law based on gender discrimination, signaling a gradual shift towards recognizing gender equality under constitutional law principles. The case laid the groundwork for subsequent cases that addressed gender discrimination with increased scrutiny, leading to the development of an intermediate scrutiny standard in gender-based equal protection claims.