Court E:lP. .•.. 9.tU;>~.~I\l~ .. Ct .. ~~~_; Voted on .................. , 19... v:' ...- · Argued ................... , 19 .. . Assigned .................. , 19... No. 73-78

Submitted ........... .. ... , 19 . . . Announced ................ , 19 . . .

1/6/13 Cert. f1led.

HOLD

FOR

Rehnquist, J ...... ........... .

Powell, J .................... .

Blackmun, J ................. .

Marshall, J .................. .

White, J ..................... .

Stewart, J ................... .

Brennan, J ................... .

Douglas, J .............. ...... .

Burger, Ch. J .............. .. .

MEL KAHN, ETC., Appellant

vs.

ROBERT L. SHEVIN, ET AL.

JURISDICTIONAL NOT CERT. MERITS MOTION AB-

1----.--+---rST_A_T_E.,.M_E_N_T,----t---,,-----+---r---fSENT VOT-0 D N POST DIS AFF REV AFF G D lNG

........ ......... ; .......... . ... ........ ..... :; ........... .

,.;' ·····;; ···· .. ·· . ....... """!

" :::::1- :::: ::: ........... ~ . ~~7 .~~ ............... .

. ....... '"" /

JBO/ gg 8-27-73

J-e~. ~ ..,L0Q... I as Qn~vJ.:f-~ ~ dt .

'k~ 5 j ~--~ ~~V-/t.~ l: s-o-n 7 o:_. l<)-r:-:-s.:n_r!

~~..rZ-.-h; ~~~~u ~=psa:+q t' t ~ )/-'~~ ~ ~t/1~~£~~~.

C<-ftfu.ll~ a-~~ J &~ t.c~ . ~

~?6 ~~ La-F:;~ ~ £...2-c.~ o/ E/ p,

n~ ~ ~ ~ -~ L . d :2.-ft.P-< t-ck£~ ~c~~~(;)~j l~, /"-~ ' /..:),"----' (...._._ ·-1,'-b--. ~ -u / -;,~ c-r- /..:...o~ -zc-~ ~.

?..-. ~ ~v,._ ~ ~~~ ~--je~<-'-d-U-~ No. 73-78 .~ w~ '1- Equal Protection attack on

~{A)":1' '£..-<..) ~+~vYlorida statute exempting Kahn v. Shevin, et al L_"._ ~ Widows (bu t not widowers) f~om

fF~J..c..hiA I C"-ertam taxes {Appe~from Florida Supreme ClnlrT''"T'-'~ ·

This is truly an appeal, since the highest state court upheld a state

statute against the claim that the statute was in violation of the u.S.

Constitution. It is about..._ 2.. months nonjurisdictionally out of time, since the

requisite materials were not docketed in this court until about 5 months after

the entry of the judgment below. However, the notice of appeal was filed

with the court below within 90 days of the judgment at issue, so jurisdictional

timeliness requirements have been met. Some attention will have to be paid

to time questions in this one, as it may be a "note." - ....--. , Appellant is a widower. Appellees are the Florida Attorney General

2.

and other state officers. The state statute that has provoked this litigation ,

Fla. Stat. §196.202, provides:

Property of widows, blind persons, and persons totally and permanently disabled -- Property to the value of five hundred dollars ($500) of every widow, blind person, or totally and permanently disabled person who is a bona fide resident of this state shall be exempt from taxation.

Appellant brought an equal protection attack in state court against this

statute, claiming impermissible sex discrimination. Citing Reed v. Reed,

404 U.S. 71 (1971) (C.J. Burger), the state trial court declared the statute

unconstitutional. The highest state court reversed. According to that court,

"[a] ll that is required to uphold the classification of widow or widower

contained in the statute in question is that it be shown that it 'rests upon some

ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of

the legislation.' " (Citing Reed). The state court thought that the disparity

b~tween the economic capabilities of a man and a woman justified the differe~ces

drawn in the statute. The court also pointed out that this was a benign intent

statute, designed to extend more favorable treatment to women rather than

to discriminate against them. The court cited a CA 2 case approving another I .

statute with the benign intent of favoring women.

Appellant points out in his 5 page JS that the statute does not distinguish

between all widows and all widowers but between widows with property and

widowers. He claims there is no rational basis for this distinction.

This case should test the ' mettle of those Justices in Frontiero who

3.

t Y ~xpressed the view that sex distinctions are suspect classifications. The

state might have some difficulty in this case, carrying the heavy burden

of justification required by the upper tier of two-tier analysis. Yet, this

statute clearly was meant to assist the weaker sex, rather than to discriminate ------------------~~

against it, and the statute does not give one a sense of injustice.

Under a less strict standard of review, the statute is probably

supportable on economic disparity and benign intent grounds. Furthermore, this

is a state tax statute, an area where the states are traditionally allowed

maximum leeway in drawing lines.

Note that in addition to the male/ female problem, the statute is

under inclusive in a more general sense. That is, widows, the blind, and the

disabled are probably not the only three classes who might need property tax

relief. What about( in addition to widowers) nearly destitute marrieds, etc.?~ ' ~?

However, we have been provided only one statute. Other statutes in an •

overall scheme may draw broader lines.

The two women's rights, pregnancy cases already granted and

calendared for argument this fall are not controlling here. See Cleveland

Bd of Ed. v. LaFleur, No. 72-777 a .n d Cohen v. Chesterfield County School

Bd. , No. 72 -ll29. The fact si~ations are too different.

Call for a response. AWAIT DISCUSSION.

Owens

'. ' '

October 8, 1973 JBO

·mscuss

~~~~~.

~~ .~~~~-1 ~ ~ ~a_~ ~ J.-d ~0 v

M~~~~~~ ~.

No. 73-78 RESPONSE RECEIVED Kahn v. Shevin

In its motion to dismiss or affirm, the state argues

that in the tax area the states have maximum room to operate --under the Equal Protection clause. The state notes that the

Court has not yet .. elevated sex classifications to upper

tier analysis. The state argues that the statute under attack

has a rational basis, submitting data showing that widows

are far more prone to poverty than widowers. The state cites

CA authority uph~lding federal social security provisions

giving women favored treatment. For these reasons and because

this appeal is so far nonjurisdictionally out of time, I

think your original disposition is correct--dismiss for want •

... .. ,•1

' ·'

. ,

February 22, 1974 Owens

No, 73-78 Kahn v. Shevin

1. Sex is not a suspect classification for the reasons

we discussed in the pregnant teachers cases, and

2. this case invowves matters of state tax policy, where ~-----------

the Court has traditionally adopted a hands-off posture.

Therefore,

3. the Florida tax exemp~ion for widows (but not widowers)

must be sustained if it has an ~ articulated or obvious

rational basis. ----------------4. Such a basis exists here because the state is engaged in

an obvious effort to counterbalance the economic disparities

to which women have been subjected. (N.b.--Even if sex is

a suspect classification, this may be a compelling state need.

Furthermore, this is a case of beni8n treatment, not deprivation,

for those who have historically been subjected to discrimation.

E.g., DeFunis v. Odegaard. Query where that leaves the upper

tier votes?)

5. The ACLU 0 s argument that the case be remanded to the

state courts to allow them to reinterpret th~ir statute so court

that it will reach mena and women is~ The stat~ has already

had that opportunity and has refused to do so. That is a

state law holding that binds this ' Court on the question

of the correc~ reading of the state statute •

Supreme Court of the United States

Memorandum

-------------------------------------· 19 ___ ____ _

v.;t;_a~ ~/ ~-UL

,£~7~~~-3~ o-Cfo 7 ft~aL~---, ~ . --6-.eh/1-1, -- ;u ·~ "L.t -&~e.

~ "VL-~ tt ~.~

c;, ;r% ~U/ J~-t--r!ii .Re~ ~

//6- 's: ~-)?I t

~ . ' No. 73-78 KAHN v. ~VIN ~ Argued 2/25/74 ~ u· _,yv ::;:&..J£'o--v ~~~rv~r-~ _,. ()e)/~ /\

..,P'

--~--~~~~--~~~~~,--------- ~~ ~J(/J-"-&) ·-f1-CLU ,

---7/

. ;.

'7~ ~~ ~ ~~-'-<..-' ~---e-~-~~ &-~a.~~~ .A~ ~

~~---c.- c.-r----~ ~_.t.- d..Jt../ .-e_~~~ / ·1--U~ I~-

L~H:c._.o .c~~~-~ -V> . ~<?A.A..~ ~- ~"Y-(_ ~~. C'~--c..~,(..,/....t~.v '-~ ~4!.-L:U-tsf> ~-fA-,__....

1!-z..r ~~~.AM-> '-'w~ ~ ~ -~ d:--L/ ..-L<J2-/-~~ ~ ....-z...u_p~ ,

. . ll

~~- ~~ ~ &tJ/.YP~p~vv~''

- ~d--~M~-- 7 ~~-t/ .~...tu_~~~ e<:L~jt-1 ;4) -~ ~t.Jk,V 1../,L/ _ _a.,~~~

~~ ~~!A-1-<~~ , ~Lu ~~~IJ'S~· ~c.-<-tb--tl!-~~_..r-(..Vl--<-

~ ·~-~~~~-­~~~~~ ·~~~u~~

-

·' .

I

,,

~~(?_d.J ~ ~~~~~~~/-.t-~

..;._ evu-~.._,_, 7 ~ ..

Ci- ~~ ~~' 9 /- L.-r-. c,;._ ~--4P'~-c-w_~~ ~--'L--'0 .. 7- ..

~-J• A- /. • d ~'-'t.f -~~ '/" Sc:>-D 7-==z-~:_s )~~ ~~~~~~, (~~ ~~),

~~~~/aJ,

~ ?~~ 6-/ : -1-o ~~ ~~~~-~~

--7---7' ~- /2-~~ t?~ p 1/ trj /}~'s ~-

• I > •

( '-

No. _7_3_-_78 __ _ Kahn v. Shevin

Brci111a11, J. ~

~CL-z.-~~~ t~p-~'t,.·~·

~ 1/ 12~ ~~ "VpJJ"L. )

~ 6n @ ' .£~ I , /J /1

· t_..z_ ~-- ~..e<-l--2---vu--R - LA...t. '1!!.-t:...u...i>£.~ L

'; ..

.,., ..,, . ~. ... .

Conf. 2/27/74

( ' ..

(·· ···•

_)

()

'

Powell, J. ~ Rch1Jquist, J. ~}-~

_)

' -' \)Oil/L

!l'o r.r The Cbiet J'u ft -s ..

Mr. Just to Bs ~ -~·:;::::) Mr. Justt e rennan 11.,., oe Ste ~~ . Justi wart Mr. ,Tusti ce Wbi te M::. .Tusti ce Marshall M. oe Bl-, 1 , , . ,rnstice p ·. c rmun

lat DRAFI' J..~ · Justice owc11 ./ From: Rebnqu1st

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED §TATESc 101'ls; J .

1. c 1 ~;c: \.3_-No. 73-78 Reci cu} ~

1 ted:

Mel Kahn, Etc., Appellant,) 0 n Appeal from the Su-

v. preme Court of Florida. Robert L . Shevin et al.

[March -, 1974]

MR. J usTICE DouGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Since at least 1885, Florida has provided for some form of property tax exemption for widmvs.' The current law granting all widows an annual $500 exemption, Fla. fitat . § 196. 191 (7), has bee n essentially unchanged since 1941.2

Appellant Kahn is a widower who lives in Florida and applied for the exemption to the Dade County Tax As­sessor's Office. It was denied because the statute offers no analogous benefit for widowers. Kahn then sought a

1 Article IX. § 9 of t hr 1k~5 Florida eon;,; t1t ution prov1drd that : ·'There ~ha ll br exrmpt from taxation proJ><' rt y to tlw valuE' of two hundred doll ar;; to <•ver~· widow that ha::; a fnnuly d<·p<> nd!:'nt on her for ;,;upport , and to rvrry prrson that hati lost a limb or been di::mb lrd in war orb~· mitifortmw."

~In 1941 Fla. Stat. § 192.0(i (7) exrmptNI '' lp]roperty to the valur of five hundrrd dollar~ to PvPry widow . . ." Thr rurrent provi~ion , rhalkngrd hNr, provides that : "The following property shall be exrm pt from tax a lion :

"(7) Property to th<' valur of fivr bundrrd doll~HH to <>very widow and to every person who i~ a bonn fide m•idrnt of the state and has lost a limb or been disabl<'d Ill war or military hostilitirs or by misfortune,' '

------

73-78-0PINION

KAHN" v. SHE\'Il\'"

declaratory j uclgnwut in the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, and that court held the statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­ment because the classification "widow" was based upon gender. The Florida Supremc Court reversed, finding thc classification valid becausc it has a "fair and sub­stantial relation to the object of the legislation," a that object being the reduction of "thc disparity between the economic capabilities of a man a11d a woman. '' Kahn appcalcd here, 28 U. S. C'. ~ 1257 ( 2), aud WP not<•d prob­able jurisdiction, - U. S. -. We affirm.

There cau bt> no dispute that the financial difficulties confronting the lone woman in Florida or in any other State exceed those facing the man. 'Vhether from overt discrimination or from the socialization process of a male dominated culture, the job market is inhospitable to the woman seeking any but the lowest paid jobs.' There are of course efforts underway to remedy this situation. On the federal level Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employees and labor unions from discrimination on the basis of sex. 42 U. S. C. §~ 2000e-2 (a), (b), (c). as does the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U. S. C. § 206 (d). But firmly entrenched practices arc resistent to such pressures, ami iwlecd , data compiled by the Woman's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor shows that in 1972 woman working full time had a median income which was only 57.9% of the male me­dian-a figure actually six points lower than had been

a Quoting Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 7fi. 'In 1970 while 40% of ma]C':; in 1 hr work forrC' earned ovrr

$10,000, nnd 70% orer $7,000. 45% or women working full timr earned leO<s than $5,000, nnd 7:3.9% C'al'llC'd lrss than $7,000. lJ. S. Department of Commerce, BHrC':t\1 of t hr Crn~11::; : Curr€'nt Populn~

fion Hcports, P- 60, No. 80.

KAHN v. SHEVIN 3

achieved in 1955." Other data IWints in the same di­rection.6 The disparity is likely to be exacerbated for the widow. While the widower can usually continue in

5 The Women's BurC'nu providr~ the followm~ data :

Year

Median ea rning:s

Wollll'n Mc11

Womrn '~ mrdian

<'arningfi 11~ pt'rrent of mrJJ'~;

1972 ... . ... . .... . .... .. .. . .... S5 ,90:~ $10,202 57.9 1971. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,59:~ 9.:399 59.5 1970 .. ......... . . . ........ .. .. 5,:32:3 .S ,9GG 59.4 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,977 :-. ,227 60.5 1968. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 4,457 7,()(i4 .).H.2 1967 ...... .. · .... .. 00 ...... .. .. 4,150 7.182 .17 .8 1966 ...... .. . . · ........... ... . . 3,97:3 6,84, ~H.O

1965 ... . . ... . . .. ..... . . .. ..... 3,82::l 0.~~75 GO.Q 1964 .. .. .. .. ...... 00 • ......... 0 :3,(jg0 6,195 $.9.6 1963 .... · .. .......... .. .... 00 .. :3,5(il 5,978 59.6 1962 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 3,446 5,794 59.5 1961 .... . .. . . .. . . . . . .... . .... . :3,351 S,fl.J-4 .59.4 1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 :3,29:3 5,417 60.R 1959 ... .. . .......... . . . . . ..... :3,HJ:3 5,209 61.3 1958 0 .. 0 0 0 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 :3,102 4 ,027 ()3.0 1957 ... . . . . .. . .. .. ......... .. . :3,00i-i 4,71:3 6:3.8 1956 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,827 4,466 63.:3 1955 ...... . .. . ... ... .. . . ...... 2,71D 4,252 63.9

Notc.-Datn for 1962-72 arr not ~trirtl~· comparable with tho~;c

for prior year::; , which arc for wagr and salary mromc only and do 11ot include earning~ of srlf-employrd per~on~ .

Source: Tablr prrpared by Women's Burrau, Employment Stand­ards Administration, U.S. Drpnrtmrnt of Lnbor, from data publu;hcd. by Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departmmt of Commerce.

6 For example, in 1972 the median income of women with four years of collrgr wa::; $8,73(i-rxactly $100 morr than thr mrclian incomr of men who had nrvrr rv<•n compll'trd onr ,\·car of high school. Of those rmployrd a:; nmnngrr~ or ndm1mstrator::;, the womrn's median inrornr wHs only 5:3 .2% of tlw men '"'• and in tlw profe~;:;ional and technical occupations 1 hr figur<> wa ::; 67 .So/, . Tim::; the tli~;parity t'xtli'nds rven to women occni>ying jobs u~ually ihought

73-78-0PINION

KAHN v. SHEVI~

the occupation which preceded his spouse's death in many cases the widow will find herself suddenly forced into a job market with which she is unfamiliar, and in which, because of her former economic dependency, she ;vill have fewer skills to offer.7

There can be no doubt therefore that Florida's differ­ing treatment of wido\\·s and widowers "restr s] upon some ground of difference having a fair and substaDtial re­lation to the object of the legislation." Reed \'. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 76, quoting Royster Guano Co. \'. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415.

This is not a case like Frontiero v. Richard~m!, 411 U. S. 677, where the Government denied its female em­ployees both substantative and procedural benefits granted males "solely for administrative convenience.'' !d., at 690 (emphasis in original).' We deal here with a state tax law reasonably desig11ed to further the state policy of cushioning the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for whom that loss imposes a (lispropor­tionately heavy burden. \Yc 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

of ns well pnid. Table's JH'PP<ll'('d by the WonH'Il'~ Bun·nu, Emplo,l'­mrnt Standard:-: Aclmillbtration, F. S. Drpartnwnt of Labor.

7 It i~ still tlw ell~<> that in tlw majorit~· of farnilir~ whcJ'C' hoth ~pouse:; nrr prr~rnt, thr woman i~ not employrd. A F<•rri;;, Incli­rntor;; of Trrnd,.; in thr Statu~ of Amrriean Womrn 95 (19il) .

8 And in Froutiero thr plmalit~· opinion :t!"o notrd that the ~tat­utr::; thrrr wrrr "not in any :>Pll~<' de;;igtwcl lo n·ellf~· tlw dTret~

of pn::;t dbcrimination against ll'omrn. On tlH· <·ontrar~· . thr:;e statute:; ,;eize upon a g;roup-womru-who hnvr hi~torlcally :sutferPd discrimination in rmploynwnt, and rrl~· upon thr effrrt~ of thi" pn:;t di~crimination a;; a ju~tification for heaping on additional eco­nomic clisadvnntagPti.'' Froutieru \'. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, ()89 n. 22 (citations omittrd) .

7z3-7.8-0PINION ~

KAHN: v. SHEVIN:

dfawing·lfues which in their judgment produce rea-son­able systems of taxation." Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356, 359. 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.,. Allied Stores v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522. 528. This prin­ciple has weathered nearly a century of Supreme Court adjudication," and it applies here as well. The statute Jie:Wre. us is.. well within: tihose limits ..

Affi. rme d ..

9 See Bell's Gap Tl. Co. v. Pemnsylvania. I34 U. S. 232', Za7;· Madden v. Kentucky. aog U. S. 83, 87- 88 ; Lawrence v. State 1'a:t· Comm'n, 286 U. S. 276 ; Royster Goorw v. Virginia, 253 U .. S. 412 ..

"I

Mr. Mr. l.~: · ~'t J '3 t ' l' L

}l ', ,Tur;t' ('f "'

lat DRAFI' 1.' • ,; ..... > t ' c f I \,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 73-78

Iwc•l r ,t,rl:

Mel Kahn, Etc., Appellant,) On App<'al from the Su-

v. premc Court of Florida. Robert L. Shevin et al.

[March -, 1974]

MR. JusTICE DouGLA8 delivered the opinion of the Court.

Since at least 1885, Florida has provided for some form of property tax exemption for widows.' The current law granting all widows an a11nual $500 exemption, Fla. Stat. § 196.191 ( 7), has bE'en essentially unchanged since 1941.2

Appellant Kahn is a widower who lives in Florida and applied for the exemption to the Dad<' County Tax As­sessor's Office. It was denied because thE' statute offers no analogous benefit for widowers. Kahn then sought a

1 Articlr lX , §9 of thr 11'~5 Florida con~titution provJd('d that : ''There ~h all br rxrmpt from taxation property to the value of two hundred dollar:> to t•n•ry widow that hn~ a family dt•pr ndent on her for support, and to every person that has lo:;t a limb or been di:;abled in war or by misfortune."

~In 1941 Fla . Stat. § 192.06 (7) exempted ' 'Lp]roperty to the value of five hundred dollar~ to pvcry widow .... " Tbr curreut provi:sion , challenged herr, proYidc:; that : "The following property shall be exempt from taxation :

" (7) Property to tht \'alue of fiv<' hutJdn·u dollar~ to <'very widow and to every prrson who i ~ a boua fide n•Hitknt of the ~tate and has lo:;t a limb or been disab!Pd in war or militmy hustilit1rs or by misfortune ."

tic;o E, ..... r •. l.L

73-78-0PINION

KAHN v. SHE\'IK

declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for Dade County .. Florida, and that court held the statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­ment because the classification "widow" was based upon gender. The Florida Supremr Court reversed, finding thr classification valid because it has a "fair and sub­stantial relation to the object of the legislation," " that object being the reduction of "thP disparity between the economic capabilities of a man and a womau.'' Kahn appealed here, 28 U.S. C. ~ 1257 ( 2), and WE-' noted prob­able jurisdiction,- U. S. -. \Ye affirm .

There can br· no dispute that the financial difficulties confronting the lone woman in Florida or in any other State exceed those facing the man. Whether from overt discrimination or from the socialization process of a male dominated culture, the job market is inhospitable to the woman seeking any but the lowest paid .Jobs.' There are of course efforts underway to remedy this situation. On the federal level Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employees and labor unions from discrimination on the basis of sex, 42 U. S. C. ~~ 2000e- 2 (a), (b), (c), as cloes the Equal Pay Act of Hl63, 29 U. S.C. § 206 (d). But firmly entrenched practices arc resistent to such pressures, ancl indeed, data compiled by the Woman's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor shows that in 1972 woman working full time had a median income which was only 57.91< of the male me­dian-a figure actually six points lower than had bceu

"Quoting Reed v. Reed. 404 U.S. 71, 7G. 4 ln 1970 while 40% of males in 1 bP work forcr rarnrd ovrr

$]0,000, and 70% o'·rr $7,000, 4-5% of womL'll working full timr earnrd les.s than $5,000, and 7.'3.9% rnmrd lr;;..~ than $7,000. LT. 8. Drpnrtmcnt of Commerce, Burran of Hw Crn~ns: CurnJnt Popula~ tion Reports, P-fiO, No. 80.

73-7~0PlNION

KAHN v. SHEVIN 3

achieved in 1955.5 Other data points in the same di­rection.n The disparity is likely to be exacerbated for the widow. While the widower can usually continue in

"The Women'R Bureau providr~ thC' following data:

Mrdin n ra rniug::;

Year Women Men

Wornrn 's median

Pamings ns percent of mC'n';;

1972 ............... . .. . .. . .. .. £5,90;{ $10,202 57.9 1971 .......................... 5,59:3 9,:399 59.5 1970 ... .............. . ........ 5,:32:3 k,96G 59.4 1969 .... . .... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 R,227 60.5 1968 ............ .... · .......... 4,457 7,6()4 ,)k.2 1967 ........ · ... . .............. 4,150 7, 1R2 .57.8 1966 .... .................. . ... 3,97:3 6,848 ·5KO 1965 ....... . . .. . .............. 3,82:3 6,375 6o.q 1964 .......... . ... . .. .. .. .. . .. :3,690 6,195 59.6 1963 ...... ..... . . ..... .... ... . 3,5(i1 5,978 59.6 1962 ..... .. ..... ... . . . . ....... :-!,44() 5,79-l 59.5 1961 . . ............ .... :' . . . ... :3,351 5,044 59.4 1960 .......... ......... ....... 3,29:3 5,n7 60.8 1959 .... .. ' ... ...... . ..... . ... :3,19:3 5,209 61 .3 1958 .. . ....................... :3,102 4,927 ()3.0 1957 ........ .... .... . ..... ... . 3,00k 4,713 fl3.8 1956 .. ........................ 2,827 4,466 fi3.:3 1955 ........ . .......... .. ... .. 2,719 4,252 6:3.9

Nok-Data for 1962-72 nre uot ::;tricth· comparable with tho~:JC'

for prior years, which are for wage and salar~· mrome only and do not. includr earning::; of self-rmployed prr~mt:>.

Sourer: Tablr preparrd by Women's Bureau , Employment Stand­ards Administration, U. S. Drpartmrnt of Labor, from data published. by Bureau of the Cen::;u:s, U. S. Drpartn1C'nt of CommC'rce.

6 For examplr, in 1972 the median income of womrn with four years of collegr was $8,736-C'xactly $100 morr than thr median income of men who had nrver ev<'n completrd one ~·ear of high school. Of 1 hose employrd a::; manager;; or ndmmist ra tors, the women's median income was only 5:3.2% of the mrn 's, and in the profes:::ional and technical occupat ioni:' thr figure wa::; 67.5%. Thm; the disparity CXtPnds evrn to Women occtti)ying job~< usually 1 bought

73-78-0PINIO,

KAHK v. SREVIN

the occupation which preceded his spouse's death in many cases the widow will find herself suddenly forced into a job market with which she is unfamiliar, ami in which, because of her former economic dependency, she will have fewer skills to offer.7

There can be no doubt therefore that Florida's differ­ing treatment of widows and ·widowers "rest[sl upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial re­lation to the object of the legislation.'' Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 76, quoting Royster Guano Co. \'. \'-iryinia, 253 U. S. 412, 415.

This is not a case like F'rontiero Y. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, where the Government denied its female em­ployees both substantative and procedural benefits granted males ''solely for administrative convenience.'' I d., at 690 (emphasis in original).' We dt'al hero with a state tax law 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. \Ye have long held that " [ w J here taxation is concerned and no specific federal right. apart from equal prot<'ction. is imperilt•d. the States have large leeway in making classifications and

of as well paid. Table:s preparf'<l by the Wonll'n'~ Bun·n11, Employ­mrnt Standard~ Adminbtration, P. 8. DPpartnwnt of Labor.

7 It i;; still thP <·a~<' that in tlw majorit)· of familil'~ \\'ll('rl' both ~;pou;;e:; are prr~ent. tlw woman i~ not employed. A F<•rri:;, lndi­raton; of Trend:; in the Statu:; of Anwri<'nn Womrn 95 (1971).

sAnd in Frontiero thr plmality opinion ;\l~o noted that tlw stat­utes therC' wrre "not In any ~rm;r clr~l!!;ll<'d to n·ct d\ t lH• pfferts of past dbcrimination again~t women. On tlw <'ontrar~· . the:sP l:'tatutes :;;rize upon n group-women-who lwvr hi~torically :sufferPd discriminntion in rmploymrnt, and rr!~· upon thr rffPets of this past di:;criminntion no: a ju~tification for lwnping on additional ('CO­

nomic disadvantagrs." Frontiero \'. Rirhardson, -tll U. B. 677_, !i89 n. 22 (citations omitted) ,

KAHN v. SHEVIN: s·

dfawing·lliHffi which in their judgment produce reason­able systems of taxation." Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356, 359. 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." Allied Stores v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 528. This prin­ciple has weathered nearly a century of Supreme Court adjudication,9 and it applies here as well. The statute Jie:fbre.. us is. well within: th()se limits ..

Affirmed ..

0 See Bell's Gap R . Co . v. Penl!Wylva·nin, I :34 U. S. 232', 237;· Madden v. Kentucky, :309 U. 8. 83, 87- 88; Lawrence v. State Ta:t" Comm'n, 286 U. S .. 276 ; Royster Gwuw v. Virginia, 253 U .. S. 412 ..

CHAMBERS OF

..JUSTICE POTTER STEWART

.iu:prttttt ~cud cf tqt ~tti.tt~ .i;htttg Jragqmghm. ~. ~· 2o~Jl.~

March 12, 1974

No. 73-78 - Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bill,

I am glad to join your opinion for the Court in this case.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. Justice Douglas

Copies to the Conference

I

....,

.iu.vrnttt <!Jttnri of tJrt ~tb ,jtatts

Jiagftiu.ghttt. ~. <!}. 2ll.;TJ!.$

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE WM . J . BRENNAN, JR.

March 13, 1974

RE: No. 73-78 Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bi 11:

I shall in due course write something

in this case.

Sincerely,

Mr. Justice Douglas

cc: The Conference

...

CfiAMBE:RS OF

/

~uprtmt Q):ottrt of tire 1llnittit ~httta

'maalfingtou, 'lfl. (!):. 21T.(;Jt~

JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL March 14, 1974

Re: No. 73-78 --Kahn v. Shevid

Dear Bill:

I shall await further writings in this one.

Sincerely,

;#u' T.M.

Mr. Justice Douglas

cc: The Conference

/

March 15, 1974

No. 73-78 Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bill:

Please join me.

Mr. Justice Douglas

lfp/ss

cc: The Conference

Sincerely,

.. , ,•

CHAMBE:RS OF

imp-rtntt CQ:Mtttltf tltt ~tti:Ub ~tab·~ ~ttJ.'I!yi:tqlfctt. ~. cq:. 2.0:c?>l-.;l

JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN

March 18, 1974

/ I

Re: No. 73-78 - Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bill:

I shall withhold my vote until I see the dissent to

be forthcoming in this case.

Sincerely,

Mr. Justice Douglas

cc: The Conference

.:%ittpunu <!Jctttt cf tlrt 'Jlitrifr:~ ~t~-tfri"

~~n~lrinnhm, ~. <!J. zop:,.~~

C H A M BCRS OF

JU STICE WI L LI AM H . RE HN Q UI ST

March 18, 1974

Re: No. 73-78 - Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bill:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

&tf1/v'V .

Mr. Justice Douglas

Copies to the Confe rence

·'

CHAMBERS 0,.

.ittprtutt <!Jtturt ttf tqt 'Jllnitt~ ,itatts 'ma.a-Iringtttn, ~. Qf. 2ll,~P1c1

J USTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL April 9, 1974

Re: No. 73-78 -- Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bill:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

T.M.

Mr. Justice Brennan

cc: The Conference

(

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN

Dear Bill:

~lt}trtutt Qflltttt of ur~ ~tnub- ;imug

~l:tllf:ri:luJhm. tB. <!f. 2ll6t'1,;l

April 9, 1974

Re: No. 73-78 - Kahn v. Shevin

Please join me.

Sincerely,

-------Mr. Justice Douglas

cc: The Conference

~ttprtlttt <l}uurlllf tlft ~b- ~Utftg Jtag!p:ttghtu. J. <!}. 2l1P:'t~

CHAMBERS OF"

THE CHIEF' ..JUSTICE April 9, 1974

Re: No. 73-78 - Kahn v. Shevin

Dear Bill:

Please join me.

Mr. Justice Douglas

Copies to the Conference

,..._TP_ I

Regards,

'

--~~~--

-

I '""

\

-T- ~-I ...,

...c t:I: tr1

I 0 ~ s J

...(:.. :---

CJ

~