| Kirchberg v. Feenstra | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 10, 1980 Decided March 23, 1981 | |
| Full case name | Kirchberg v. Feenstra et al. |
| Citations | 450U.S.455 (more) 101 S. Ct. 1195; 67L. Ed. 2d 428 |
| Holding | |
| TheHead and Master law violates the Equal Protection Clause. Gender-based discrimination is unconstitutional absent a showing that the classification substantially furthers an important governmental interest. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Stewart, joined by Rehnquist |
Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a LouisianaHead and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband and indicated the husband's dominance over the wife in the marriage, unconstitutional.[1][2]
In 1974, Joan Feenstra charged her husband Harold with havingmolested their daughter. Harold hired an attorney, Karl Kirchberg, to defend himself against the charges, and mortgaged the Feenstras' home toward paying the cost of that attorney. Joan was not informed of this mortgage becauseHead and Master provisions of Louisiana law allowed him to do so without her consent or knowledge. She dropped the charges, and the couple separated. Joan did not learn about the mortgage until 1976, when Harold's attorney returned to demand payment and threatenedforeclosure.[1] She then filed a lawsuit arguing that Louisiana's laws giving sole control of marital property to the husband were unconstitutional.
The district court upheld Louisiana's law. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the district court, finding the law unconstitutionally violated theEqual Protection Clause, but limited the application of their ruling to future decisions. Feenstra appealed to the Supreme Court.[3]
Applyingintermediate scrutiny as they had inCraig v. Boren, the court held that Louisiana's law lacked an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for its sex-based classification, and therefore was in violation of theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2][4]
In 1980, during the appeals process, Louisiana changed their laws to eliminate the Head and Master provisions.[2][5]
In 2015, during oral arguments in thesame-sex marriage caseObergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg used the example of the Supreme Court's striking down of Louisiana's Head and Master rule inKirchberg v. Feenstra to illustrate how"traditional" concepts of marriage had been revised over time.[6]
We have changed our idea about marriage is the point that I made earlier. Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this Court's decision in 1982 when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. And no State was allowed to have such a—such a marriage anymore. Would that be a choice that a State should be allowed to have?
— Justice Ginsburg,[7]
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRehnquist Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |