Appellant
Mel Kahn
Appellee
Robert L. Shevin, et al.
Appellant's Claim
That a Florida law granting a tax exemption to widows but not widowers was unconstitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Sydney H. McKenzie III
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Potter Stewart, William H. Rehnquist
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 April 1974
Decision
Florida's granting of tax benefits to widows but not widowers was found to bevalid under the Constitution.
Significance
The Supreme Court's decision in Kahn v. Shevin validated the use of gender classifications in instances where lawmakers are trying to achieve benevolent social goals.
The Facts of the Case
Since 1941, the state of Florida had a law on its books which gave a $500 annual property tax exemption to women whose husbands had died. However, the statute provided no such tax relief to men whose wives had died. When Mel Kahn,a Florida widower, had his application for a tax exemption denied by the TaxAssessor's Office, he filed suit in circuit court. In his complaint, Kahn alleged that the granting of benefits to widows only violated his constitutionalright to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He asked to have the statute declared unconstitutional.
The Lower Courts Rule
The Circuit Court for Dade County found in Kahn's favor. It ruled that the law in question violated the Equal Protection Clause because the classification"widow" was based upon gender. The state then appealed to the Florida StateSupreme Court, which reversed the circuit court's judgment. In its view, the"widow" classification was permissible because it related in a "fair and substantial" way to the purpose of the law, which was to reduce "the disparity between the economic capabilities of a man and a woman." "The challenged tax law is reasonably designed to further the state policy of cushioning the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for whom that loss imposes a disproportionately heavy burden," the state supreme court determined. Unsatisfied with this reversal, Mel Kahn then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court Decides
On 24 April 1974, the Supreme Court issued its decision. In a 6-3 vote, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Florida State Supreme Court and found the statute valid under the Constitution. In doing so, the Court majority relied heavily on its belief that "the financial difficulties confronting the lone woman in Florida or in any other State exceed those facing the man." It noted the male-dominated socialization process, outright discrimination, and an inhospitable job market for women as reasons why some form of redress might be warranted. Florida's differing treatment of widows and widowers, therefore, could be justified because the gender classification served a benevolent socialpurpose.
Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas observed:
Dissenting Opinions
Three justices dissented in this case. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, objected to the majority decision on the grounds that the same ends could have been better served by less sweeping legislation. A state may enact gender-specific legislation, Brennan wrote, but "only when the State bears theburden of demonstrating that the challenged legislation serves overriding orcompelling interests that cannot be achieved either by a more carefully tailored legislative classification or by the use of feasible, less drastic means." In the view of these two justices, Florida would have served its widows equally well by drafting a more narrow law that denied exemptions to financially secure widows.
A separate dissent came from Justice White, who found no compelling reason toconfer state benefits upon women rather than men. "[T]here are many rich widows who need no largess from the State . . . " White wrote. "At the same time, there are many widowers who are needy and who are in more desperate financial straits and have less access to the job market than many widows. Yet noneof them qualifies for the exemption." White held the Florida statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause. While gender-based classifications had a place in the law, in his view they "require more justification than the State has offered" in this case.
Impact
The Supreme Court's decision in Kahn v. Shevin upheld benevolent gender classifications and was a benchmark for many similar cases to follow. Oftenthe Court reaffirmed the opinion set forth here; at other times, it used Kahn v. Shevin as an example of the right way to wrote gender classifications into law in order to strike down other, less constitutionally valid attempts to do so.
Related Cases
Mel Kahn
Appellee
Robert L. Shevin, et al.
Appellant's Claim
That a Florida law granting a tax exemption to widows but not widowers was unconstitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Sydney H. McKenzie III
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Potter Stewart, William H. Rehnquist
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 April 1974
Decision
Florida's granting of tax benefits to widows but not widowers was found to bevalid under the Constitution.
Significance
The Supreme Court's decision in Kahn v. Shevin validated the use of gender classifications in instances where lawmakers are trying to achieve benevolent social goals.
The Facts of the Case
Since 1941, the state of Florida had a law on its books which gave a $500 annual property tax exemption to women whose husbands had died. However, the statute provided no such tax relief to men whose wives had died. When Mel Kahn,a Florida widower, had his application for a tax exemption denied by the TaxAssessor's Office, he filed suit in circuit court. In his complaint, Kahn alleged that the granting of benefits to widows only violated his constitutionalright to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He asked to have the statute declared unconstitutional.
The Lower Courts Rule
The Circuit Court for Dade County found in Kahn's favor. It ruled that the law in question violated the Equal Protection Clause because the classification"widow" was based upon gender. The state then appealed to the Florida StateSupreme Court, which reversed the circuit court's judgment. In its view, the"widow" classification was permissible because it related in a "fair and substantial" way to the purpose of the law, which was to reduce "the disparity between the economic capabilities of a man and a woman." "The challenged tax law is reasonably designed to further the state policy of cushioning the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for whom that loss imposes a disproportionately heavy burden," the state supreme court determined. Unsatisfied with this reversal, Mel Kahn then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court Decides
On 24 April 1974, the Supreme Court issued its decision. In a 6-3 vote, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Florida State Supreme Court and found the statute valid under the Constitution. In doing so, the Court majority relied heavily on its belief that "the financial difficulties confronting the lone woman in Florida or in any other State exceed those facing the man." It noted the male-dominated socialization process, outright discrimination, and an inhospitable job market for women as reasons why some form of redress might be warranted. Florida's differing treatment of widows and widowers, therefore, could be justified because the gender classification served a benevolent socialpurpose.
Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas observed:
We deal herewith a state tax law reasonably designed to further the state policy of cushioning the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for which that loss imposes a disproportionately heavy burden. We have long held that "[w]here taxation is concerned and no specific federal right, apart from equal protection, is imperiled, the States have large leeway in making classifications and drawing lines which in their judgment produce reasonable systems of taxation."A state tax law is not arbitrary although it "discriminate[s] in favor of a certain class . . . if the discrimination is founded upon a reasonable distinction, or difference in state policy," not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. This principle has weathered nearly a century of Supreme Court adjudication, and it applies here as well. The statute before us is well within thoselimits.
Dissenting Opinions
Three justices dissented in this case. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, objected to the majority decision on the grounds that the same ends could have been better served by less sweeping legislation. A state may enact gender-specific legislation, Brennan wrote, but "only when the State bears theburden of demonstrating that the challenged legislation serves overriding orcompelling interests that cannot be achieved either by a more carefully tailored legislative classification or by the use of feasible, less drastic means." In the view of these two justices, Florida would have served its widows equally well by drafting a more narrow law that denied exemptions to financially secure widows.
A separate dissent came from Justice White, who found no compelling reason toconfer state benefits upon women rather than men. "[T]here are many rich widows who need no largess from the State . . . " White wrote. "At the same time, there are many widowers who are needy and who are in more desperate financial straits and have less access to the job market than many widows. Yet noneof them qualifies for the exemption." White held the Florida statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause. While gender-based classifications had a place in the law, in his view they "require more justification than the State has offered" in this case.
Impact
The Supreme Court's decision in Kahn v. Shevin upheld benevolent gender classifications and was a benchmark for many similar cases to follow. Oftenthe Court reaffirmed the opinion set forth here; at other times, it used Kahn v. Shevin as an example of the right way to wrote gender classifications into law in order to strike down other, less constitutionally valid attempts to do so.
Related Cases
- Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975).
- Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975).
- Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977).
- Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977).
User Comments Add a comment…