| 词条 | Kirchberg v. Feenstra |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Kirchberg v. Feenstra |ArgueDate=December 10 |ArgueYear=1980 |DecideDate=March 23 |DecideYear=1981 |FullName=Kirchberg v. Feenstra et al. |USVol=450 |USPage=455 |ParallelCitations=101 S. Ct. 1195; 67 L. Ed. 2d 428 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=1975–1981 |Majority=Marshall |JoinMajority=Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |Concurrence=Stewart |JoinConcurrence=Rehnquist |Concurrence2= |JoinConcurrence2= |Concurrence/Dissent= |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |JoinDissent2= |LawsApplied= }}Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[1][2] BackgroundIn 1974, Joan Feenstra charged her husband Harold had molested 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 because Head 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 threatened foreclosure.[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 the Equal Protection Clause, but limited the application of their ruling to future decisions. Feenstra appealed to the Supreme Court.[3] Opinion of the CourtApplying intermediate scrutiny as they had in Craig 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 the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2][4] Further developmentsIn 1980, during the appeals process, Louisiana changed their laws to eliminate the Head and Master provisions.[2][5] Obergefell v. HodgesIn 2015, during oral arguments in the same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used the example of the Supreme Court's striking down of Louisiana's Head and Master rule in Kirchberg v. Feenstra to illustrate how "traditional" concepts of marriage had been revised over time.[6] Justice Ginsburg: "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?" [7]References1. ^1 {{cite book|last1=Schenken|first1=Suzanne O'Dea|last2=O'Dea|first2=Suzanne|title=From Suffrage to the Senate: An Encyclopedia of American Women in Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Si6ZVqdOqIgC&pg=PA380|accessdate=28 April 2015|year=1999|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=9780874369601|pages=380–}} 2. ^1 2 {{cite book|last=Kuersten|first=Ashlyn K.|title=Women and the Law: Leaders, Cases, and Documents|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AnKGWlZG_ncC&pg=PA95|accessdate=28 April 2015|date=2003-01-01|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=9780874368789|pages=95–}} 3. ^[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/455/ Opinion of the Court at Justia] 4. ^{{cite book|last=Shaman|first=Jeffrey M.|title=Constitutional Interpretation: Illusion and Reality|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iKYAKSRBQvsC&pg=PA95|accessdate=29 April 2015|date=2001-01-01|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9780313314735|pages=95–}} 5. ^{{cite journal|last=Young|first=Rowland L.|journal=ABA Journal|volume=67|number=5|year=1981|pages=630-|jstor=20747149|title=Supreme Court Report}} 6. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage-arguments-supreme-court|title=Ruth Bader Ginsburg eviscerates same-sex marriage opponents in court|publisher=The Guardian|date=30 April 2015|author= Dan Roberts }} 7. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf|title=Oral Arguments Obergefell v. Hodges|publisher=supremecourt.gov|date=26 June 2015}} External links
| case = Kirchberg v. Feenstra, {{Ussc|450|455|1981|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/455/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450455/usrep450455.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/79-1388{{US14thAmendment}}{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} 5 : 1981 in United States case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States equal protection case law|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|Gender discrimination lawsuits |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。