In 1971, the Supreme Court concluded in Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) that an Idaho law that discriminated against women was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Before this case, no court had ever made such a ruling. Two other key Fourteenth Amendment cases from the 1970s concerned jury duty for women: Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) and Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).
Given those cases, apply what you have learned to this hypothetical situation regarding your law firm’s client, Keiko.
Keiko and her husband TJ jointly own a farm and home in Arkansas. A law in their home state grants husbands the authority to sell the property without the wife’s consent. That law (Ark. Code 987.zyx) provides:
“The husband is the head and master of the partnership or community of assets (property and money); the husband can sell and use the revenue which any asset produces, without the consent and permission of his wife.”
Keiko recently left TJ because he was verbally and physically abusive to her and their minor son, Buddy.
Your supervising attorney (Will Freeman, under his signature) has asked you to write the first draft of a client letter to Keiko addressing the following:
1. TJ decided the farm was no longer profitable and it was time to sell it. Can he do so without Keiko’s consent?
2. In what types of cases will the court use a strict scrutiny analysis, intermediate scrutiny analysis, or a rational basis review? Which level review is appropriate for Keiko’s case?
3. Apply a Fourteenth Amendment legal analysis to determine whether this law is constitutional. Research other cases to support your analysis. What was the court’s approach and reasoning regarding equal protection? How do you think it applies to Keiko and TJ’s situation? Based on your analysis, do you think Keiko should pursue litigation? If she does not want to litigate, what other solutions are possible?
4. Shepardize one of the cases noted above and find a subsequent case to support your analysis and conclusion. (Identify which of the three cases you Shepardized, as well as the facts and holding of the new case you found.)
5. After you conclude the letter to Keiko, address the following:
a. What are the implications of what you have learned as a result of analyzing this hypothetical scenario and its relationship to the historical evolution of Fourteenth Amendment law? (As you reflect on this, focus on legal and societal perspectives within their respective historical contexts, not applying a modern lens to older time periods. But you can use the old points of view to make informed reasoning within the contemporary contexts.)
b. What challenges did you discover, including how society was, is, or could be affected? How have or could the challenges be overcome? Has (or can) technology be used to make improvements? Why or why not?
Please be sure to provide appropriate citations to your cases and other sources.
