Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Reed v. Reed Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1971Docket #1411337
30 L. Ed. 2d 225 92 S. Ct. 251 404 U.S. 71 1971 U.S. LEXIS 8 Constitutional Law Family Law Property

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: An Idaho law automatically preferred men over women for appointing estate administrators. When a mother and father both sought to administer their deceased son’s estate, the Supreme Court found the gender-based preference violated the Equal Protection Clause as an arbitrary distinction unrelated to administrative capability.

Legal Significance: This landmark case was the first time the Supreme Court invalidated a law for gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. It established that sex-based classifications must bear a substantial relationship to legitimate state objectives, setting the stage for intermediate scrutiny.

Reed v. Reed Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Sally and Cecil Reed, a separated couple, both filed petitions to be appointed administrator of their deceased minor son’s estate. Idaho Code § 15-312 listed eleven classes of persons entitled to administer an estate, placing the father and mother in the same class. However, Idaho Code § 15-314 established a mandatory preference, stating that when multiple equally-entitled persons applied, “males must be preferred to females.” The probate court, following § 15-314, appointed Cecil Reed as administrator solely because he was male, without holding a hearing to determine the relative qualifications of the two parents. The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that the gender-based preference was a rational method for achieving the state’s legitimate objective of reducing the workload on probate courts by eliminating hearings on the merits. Sally Reed appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the statute constituted invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does an Idaho statute that gives a mandatory preference to males over females for appointment as an estate administrator, when both are otherwise equally entitled, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The Court held that the Idaho statute’s mandatory preference for one Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does an Idaho statute that gives a mandatory preference to males over females for appointment as an estate administrator, when both are otherwise equally entitled, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Reed v. Reed is a seminal case that marked the beginning of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende

Legal Rule

A statutory classification "must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat

Legal Analysis

The Court subjected the Idaho statute to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An Idaho law giving mandatory preference to men over women in
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vo

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

You win some, you lose some, and some you just bill by the hour.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+