orr
orr
argued
november
decided
march
following
stipulation
appellant
husband
appellee
wife
appellant
agreed
pay
appellee
alimony
alabama
acting
pursuant
state
alimony
statutes
husbands
wives
may
required
pay
alimony
upon
divorce
ordered
appellant
make
monthly
alimony
payments
two
years
thereafter
appellee
filed
petition
seeking
appellant
adjudged
contempt
failing
maintain
alimony
payments
hearing
petition
appellant
though
claiming
entitled
alimony
award
appellee
made
contention
advanced
first
time
proceeding
alabama
statutes
virtue
reliance
classification
violated
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
trial
ruling
adversely
appellant
issue
entered
judgment
affirmed
appeal
held
jurisdiction
appellant
appeal
pp
appellant
failure
ask
alimony
deprive
standing
attack
constitutionality
alabama
statutes
underinclusiveness
attack
holds
promise
relief
burden
deriving
challenged
statutes
appellant
therefore
alleged
personal
stake
outcome
controversy
assure
concrete
adverseness
sharpens
presentation
issues
upon
th
largely
depends
illumination
difficult
constitutional
questions
baker
carr
pp
courts
refused
entertain
appellant
constitutional
contention
ground
timely
made
applicable
state
procedures
might
lacked
jurisdiction
consider
contention
timeliness
point
raised
considered
constitutional
issue
decided
merits
circumstances
irrelevant
whether
decision
based
upon
adequate
independent
state
ground
pp
point
raised
considered
appellant
virtue
stipulation
obliged
make
alimony
payments
state
contract
law
state
decide
appellant
upon
independent
state
ground
deeming
federal
question
actually
decides
question
adversely
federal
right
asserted
jurisdiction
review
judgment
final
indiana
ex
rel
anderson
brand
pp
alabama
statutory
scheme
imposing
alimony
obligations
husbands
wives
violates
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
pp
withstand
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
classifications
gender
must
serve
important
governmental
objectives
must
substantially
related
achievement
objectives
califano
webster
pp
statutes
validated
basis
state
preference
allocation
family
responsibilities
wife
plays
dependent
role
longer
female
destined
solely
home
rearing
family
male
marketplace
world
ideas
stanton
stanton
pp
though
argued
alabama
statutory
scheme
designed
provide
help
needy
spouses
using
sex
proxy
need
compensate
women
past
discrimination
marriage
assertedly
left
unprepared
fend
working
world
following
divorce
considerations
justify
scheme
alabama
statutes
individualized
hearings
parties
relative
financial
circumstances
considered
already
occur
since
hearings
determine
spouses
needy
well
wives
fact
discriminated
reason
operate
generalization
thus
distinction
gratuitous
weinberger
wiesenfeld
pp
use
gender
classification
moreover
actually
produces
perverse
results
case
financially
secure
wife
whose
husband
need
derives
advantage
alabama
scheme
compared
one
pp
question
remains
open
remand
whether
appellant
stipulated
agreement
pay
alimony
grounds
state
law
bind
continue
alimony
payments
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
stewart
white
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
blackmun
post
stevens
post
filed
concurring
opinions
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
joined
post
john
capell
iii
argued
cause
filed
briefs
appellant
horsley
argued
cause
filed
brief
appellee
ruth
bader
ginsburg
margaret
moses
young
filed
brief
american
civil
liberties
union
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
question
presented
constitutionality
alabama
alimony
statutes
provide
husbands
wives
may
required
pay
alimony
upon
divorce
february
final
decree
divorce
entered
dissolving
marriage
william
lillian
orr
decree
directed
appellant
orr
pay
appellee
orr
per
month
alimony
july
orr
initiated
contempt
proceeding
circuit
lee
county
alleging
orr
arrears
alimony
payments
august
hearing
orr
petition
orr
submitted
defense
motion
requesting
alabama
alimony
statutes
declared
unconstitutional
authorize
courts
place
obligation
alimony
upon
husbands
never
upon
wives
circuit
denied
orr
motion
entered
judgment
covering
back
alimony
attorney
fees
relying
solely
upon
federal
constitutional
claim
orr
appealed
judgment
march
civil
appeals
alabama
sustained
constitutionality
alabama
statutes
may
alabama
granted
orr
petition
writ
certiorari
november
without
opinion
quashed
writ
improvidently
granted
noted
probable
jurisdiction
hold
challenged
alabama
statutes
unconstitutional
reverse
first
address
three
preliminary
questions
raised
parties
alabama
courts
nevertheless
may
jurisdictional
therefore
considered
motion
first
concerns
standing
orr
assert
defense
unconstitutionality
alabama
statutes
appears
orr
made
claim
entitled
award
alimony
orr
required
pay
alimony
similarly
situated
wives
ordered
pay
therefore
possible
success
ultimately
bring
relief
judgment
outstanding
state
respond
reversal
neutrally
extending
alimony
rights
needy
husbands
well
wives
event
orr
remain
obligated
wife
thus
argued
proper
plaintiff
husband
requested
alimony
one
merely
objected
paying
alimony
argument
quite
clearly
proves
much
every
equal
protection
attack
upon
statute
challenged
underinclusive
state
may
satisfy
constitution
commands
either
extending
benefits
previously
disfavored
class
denying
benefits
parties
repealing
statute
whole
case
held
unconstitutional
alabama
divorce
statutes
validated
inter
alia
amendments
either
permit
awards
husbands
well
wives
deny
alimony
parties
true
first
disposition
orr
might
gain
nothing
success
although
hypothetical
requesting
plaintiff
however
instead
state
takes
second
course
denies
alimony
spouses
orr
hypothetical
plaintiff
benefit
way
knowing
state
fact
respond
unless
hold
underinclusive
statutes
never
challenged
plaintiff
success
theoretically
thwarted
orr
must
held
standing
several
occasions
considered
inherent
problem
challenges
underinclusive
statutes
stanton
stanton
craig
boren
denied
plaintiff
standing
ground
question
orr
bears
burden
bear
female
issue
highlighted
although
altered
transposing
sphere
race
doubt
state
law
imposing
alimony
obligations
blacks
whites
challenged
black
required
pay
burden
alone
sufficient
establish
standing
resolution
statute
constitutionality
often
finally
resolve
controversy
th
appellant
th
appellee
stanton
stanton
deny
standing
simply
appellant
although
prevailing
federal
constitutional
issue
may
may
ultimately
win
lawsuit
holdings
alabama
courts
stand
total
bar
appellant
relief
constitutional
attack
holds
promise
escape
burden
derives
challenged
statutes
therefore
alleged
personal
stake
outcome
controversy
assure
concrete
adverseness
sharpens
presentation
issues
upon
th
largely
depends
illumination
difficult
constitutional
questions
linda
richard
quoting
baker
carr
indeed
indistinguishable
facts
stated
party
standing
sustained
linda
richard
supra
marshall
stated
parent
legitimate
child
must
statute
pay
child
support
standing
challenge
statute
ground
parent
illegitimate
child
equally
burdened
second
preliminary
question
concerns
timeliness
appellant
challenge
constitutionality
statutes
constitutional
challenge
made
time
original
divorce
decree
orr
interpose
constitution
sought
contempt
judgment
failure
abide
terms
decree
unexcused
tardiness
might
well
constituted
procedural
default
state
law
alabama
refused
hear
orr
constitutional
objection
ground
might
without
jurisdiction
consider
see
wright
federal
courts
ed
case
neither
orr
alabama
courts
time
objected
timeliness
presentation
constitutional
issue
instead
alabama
circuit
civil
appeals
courts
considered
issue
properly
presented
decided
merits
see
app
juris
statement
circumstances
objection
orr
complaint
comes
late
clearly
untenable
ince
state
deemed
federal
constitutional
question
treat
decision
resting
upon
adequate
independent
state
ground
even
conclude
state
might
properly
relied
upon
ground
avoid
deciding
federal
question
beecher
alabama
merely
application
elementary
rule
irrelevant
inquire
federal
question
raised
appears
question
actually
considered
decided
manhattan
life
ins
cohen
accord
harlin
missouri
jenkins
georgia
raley
ohio
see
wright
supra
third
preliminary
question
arises
indications
record
orr
alimony
obligation
part
stipulation
entered
parties
incorporated
divorce
decree
lee
county
circuit
thus
may
despite
unconstitutionality
alimony
statutes
orr
may
continuing
obligation
former
wife
based
upon
agreement
essence
matter
state
contract
law
alabama
courts
held
anchored
judgments
case
basis
independent
adequate
state
ground
might
exist
without
power
hear
constitutional
argument
see
herb
pitcairn
fox
film
muller
ambiguity
whether
state
decision
based
federal
state
grounds
open
determine
federal
question
remand
state
courts
clarification
ground
decision
see
california
krivda
ambiguity
time
orr
raise
stipulation
possible
alternative
ground
support
judgment
indeed
brief
alabama
civil
appeals
expressly
stated
appellee
agrees
issue
whether
alabama
alimony
laws
unconstitutional
gender
based
classification
made
statutes
app
juris
statement
alabama
circuit
civil
appeals
courts
reached
decided
federal
question
without
considering
issues
latter
specifying
sole
issue
whether
alabama
alimony
statutes
unconstitutional
find
unconstitutional
affirm
reason
given
state
majority
quashing
writ
certiorari
concurring
dissenting
opinions
mention
federal
constitutional
issue
mention
stipulation
see
orr
even
raise
point
record
course
clear
dictated
long
line
decisions
state
decide
petitioner
appellant
upon
independent
state
ground
deeming
federal
question
actually
entertains
decides
question
adversely
federal
right
asserted
jurisdiction
review
judgment
final
judgment
refuse
jurisdiction
state
might
based
decision
consistently
record
upon
independent
adequate
ground
indiana
ex
rel
anderson
brand
analysis
three
preliminary
questions
therefore
indicates
jurisdiction
constitutional
challenge
asserted
orr
art
iii
case
controversy
properly
presented
turn
merits
ii
authorizing
imposition
alimony
obligations
husbands
wives
alabama
statutory
scheme
provides
different
treatment
accorded
basis
sex
thus
establishes
classification
subject
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
reed
reed
fact
classification
expressly
discriminates
men
rather
women
protect
scrutiny
craig
boren
withstand
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
classifications
gender
must
serve
important
governmental
objectives
must
substantially
related
achievement
objectives
califano
webster
shall
therefore
examine
three
governmental
objectives
might
arguably
served
alabama
statutory
scheme
appellant
views
alabama
alimony
statutes
effectively
announcing
state
preference
allocation
family
responsibilities
wife
plays
dependent
role
seeking
objective
reinforcement
model
among
state
citizens
cf
stern
stern
agree
urges
prior
cases
settle
purpose
sustain
statutes
stanton
stanton
held
old
notio
generally
man
primary
responsibility
provide
home
essentials
longer
justify
statute
discriminates
basis
gender
longer
female
destined
solely
home
rearing
family
male
marketplace
world
ideas
see
also
craig
boren
supra
statute
survive
constitutional
attack
therefore
must
validated
basis
opinion
alabama
civil
appeals
suggests
purposes
statute
may
serve
opinion
alabama
statutes
designed
wife
broken
marriage
needs
financial
assistance
may
read
asserting
either
two
legislative
objectives
one
legislative
purpose
provide
help
needy
spouses
using
sex
proxy
need
goal
compensating
women
past
discrimination
marriage
assertedly
left
unprepared
fend
working
world
following
divorce
concede
course
assisting
needy
spouses
legitimate
important
governmental
objective
also
recognized
education
disparity
economic
condition
men
women
caused
long
history
discrimination
women
important
governmental
objective
califano
webster
supra
remains
therefore
determine
whether
classification
issue
substantially
related
achievement
objectives
ibid
ordinarily
begin
analysis
needy
spouse
objective
considering
whether
sex
sufficiently
accurate
proxy
craig
boren
supra
dependency
establish
gender
classification
rests
upon
ground
difference
fair
substantial
relation
object
legislation
reed
reed
supra
similarly
initially
approach
compensation
rationale
asking
whether
women
fact
significantly
discriminated
sphere
statute
applied
classification
leaving
sexes
similarly
situated
respect
opportunities
sphere
schlesinger
ballard
compare
califano
webster
supra
kahn
shevin
weinberger
wiesenfeld
case
even
sex
reliable
proxy
need
even
institution
marriage
discriminate
women
factors
still
adequately
justify
salient
features
alabama
statutory
scheme
craig
boren
supra
statute
individualized
hearings
parties
relative
financial
circumstances
considered
already
occur
see
russell
russell
ortman
ortman
reason
therefore
use
sex
proxy
need
needy
males
helped
along
needy
females
little
additional
burden
state
circumstances
even
rationale
exists
justify
operating
generalization
proxy
similarly
since
individualized
hearings
determine
women
fact
discriminated
husbands
well
family
units
defied
stereotype
left
husband
dependent
wife
alabama
alleged
compensatory
purpose
may
effectuated
without
placing
burdens
solely
husbands
progress
toward
fulfilling
purpose
hampered
cost
state
nothing
treat
men
women
equally
making
alimony
burdens
independent
sex
thus
distinction
gratuitous
without
statutory
scheme
provide
benefits
men
fact
similarly
situated
women
statute
aids
weinberger
wiesenfeld
supra
effort
help
women
way
compromised
moreover
use
gender
classification
actually
produces
perverse
results
case
compared
law
placing
alimony
obligations
spouse
able
pay
present
alabama
statutes
give
advantage
financially
secure
wife
whose
husband
need
although
wife
might
pay
alimony
statute
present
statutes
exempt
obligation
thus
wives
benefit
disparate
treatment
nondependent
husbands
califano
goldfarb
stevens
concurring
judgment
precisely
needy
spouses
least
likely
victims
discrimination
institution
marriage
classification
compared
one
generates
additional
benefits
reason
prefer
survive
equal
protection
scrutiny
legislative
classifications
distribute
benefits
burdens
basis
gender
carry
inherent
risk
reinforcing
stereotypes
proper
place
women
need
special
protection
cf
jewish
organizations
carey
opinion
concurring
part
thus
even
statutes
purportedly
designed
compensate
ameliorate
effects
past
discrimination
must
carefully
tailored
state
compensatory
ameliorative
purposes
well
served
classification
one
gender
classifies
therefore
carries
baggage
sexual
stereotypes
state
permitted
classify
basis
sex
doubly
choice
made
state
appears
redound
indirectly
benefit
without
need
special
solicitude
iii
found
alabama
alimony
statutes
unconstitutional
reverse
judgment
remand
cause
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
disposition
course
leaves
state
courts
free
decide
questions
substantive
state
law
yet
passed
upon
litigation
indiana
ex
rel
anderson
brand
wright
federal
courts
see
south
dakota
opperman
marshall
dissenting
air
lines
mahin
california
green
schuylkill
trust
pennsylvania
georgia
elec
decatur
therefore
open
alabama
courts
remand
consider
whether
orr
stipulated
agreement
pay
alimony
grounds
state
law
bind
continue
alimony
payments
reversed
remanded
footnotes
uncertainty
point
may
appellant
circuit
motion
challenging
constitutionality
statutes
construed
constituting
claim
alimony
appeals
opinion
refers
one
orr
arguments
challenging
failure
statutes
provide
award
alimony
males
oral
argument
appellant
attorney
characterized
motion
asserting
claim
award
tr
oral
arg
course
whether
proper
way
assert
claim
alimony
may
question
state
law
state
courts
challenge
appellant
standing
ground
careful
examination
appellant
allegations
reveals
may
need
rely
upon
arguments
demonstrate
standing
alleges
receive
relief
matter
reform
statutes
alabama
chooses
make
even
alabama
chooses
burden
men
women
alimony
requirements
appropriate
circumstances
orr
argues
statute
result
lower
payments
part
argues
current
statutes
award
alimony
wives
based
solely
upon
need
comparative
financial
circumstances
also
upon
factors
state
view
man
must
maintain
wife
manner
accustomed
ortman
ortman
also
argues
alimony
agreements
automatically
incorporated
decrees
rather
usually
first
reviewed
fairness
wife
husband
see
russell
russell
given
disposition
case
need
resolve
allegations
serve
render
unassailable
appellant
standing
assert
unconstitutionality
statutes
preclude
state
even
alabama
another
case
holding
contempt
proceedings
late
process
challenge
constitutionality
divorce
decree
already
entered
without
constitutional
objection
assuming
course
state
prior
proceedings
permit
fair
opportunity
assert
federal
right
see
naacp
alabama
indeed
brother
powell
points
post
alabama
apparently
similar
rule
see
hughes
hughes
civ
app
cert
dismissed
improvidently
granted
appeal
docketed
therefore
reason
concern
today
decision
might
nullify
existing
alimony
obligations
fact
state
courts
decline
hear
tardily
raised
constitutional
challenges
mean
matter
federal
law
must
decide
instead
reach
federal
question
jurisdiction
see
beecher
alabama
cases
cited
text
supra
page
whether
orr
contempt
judgment
survive
basis
stipulation
alone
depends
upon
resolution
somewhat
knotty
problems
foremost
fact
present
suit
simple
action
breach
contract
rather
contempt
proceeding
disobeying
divorce
decree
moreover
alabama
law
divorce
judge
automatically
approve
stipulated
settlements
must
review
fairness
russell
russell
supra
alabama
courts
treat
orr
stipulation
invalidation
alimony
statutes
matter
predict
fact
state
merely
quashed
petition
certiorari
highest
state
actually
decide
merits
case
appeals
alter
result
cicenia
lagay
overruled
grounds
miranda
arizona
example
new
jersey
superior
decided
case
federal
constitutional
grounds
although
state
grounds
might
available
state
denied
certification
without
giving
reasons
precisely
situation
present
fact
claim
independent
state
ground
existed
even
stronger
cicenia
trial
essex
county
rested
decision
state
law
nonetheless
cicenia
held
since
superior
dealt
petitioner
constitutional
claims
merits
jurisdiction
exists
shall
assume
new
jersey
decision
denying
leave
appeal
based
th
nonfederal
ground
brother
rehnquist
dissent
contends
doremus
board
education
requires
dismissal
orr
appeal
quotation
doremus
cited
brother
rehnquist
post
merely
confirms
obvious
proposition
state
confer
standing
party
otherwise
lack
proposition
wholly
irrelevant
case
although
state
confer
standing
decline
place
purely
obstacles
way
appellant
right
decide
federal
claim
brother
rehnquist
argues
matter
state
contract
law
albeit
unsettled
denies
orr
otherwise
clear
standing
case
alabama
courts
construed
stipulation
continuing
bind
orr
something
alabama
courts
addressing
deciding
merits
orr
constitutional
argument
alabama
courts
declined
interpose
obstacle
orr
standing
brother
powell
dissent
makes
two
objections
reaching
merits
case
first
abstain
deciding
constitutional
issue
cause
remanded
afford
alabama
second
opportunity
consider
case
authority
cites
opinions
applying
pullman
abstention
doctrine
see
railroad
pullman
doctrine
applicable
state
deferred
previously
examined
case
one
long
string
opinions
cited
brother
powell
post
approved
abstention
situation
like
one
question
referred
already
considered
case
surprising
indeed
disturbing
objection
made
brother
powell
suggestion
parties
may
colluded
bring
constitutional
issue
post
evidence
whatever
within
outside
record
supports
accusation
brother
powell
suggests
none
indeed
difficult
imagine
possible
interest
orr
helping
resist
demand
back
alimony
appellee
attempts
buttress
importance
objective
arguing
common
law
stripped
married
woman
many
rights
property
attempted
partially
compensate
giving
assurance
supported
husband
brief
appellee
argument
support
obligation
imposed
common
law
compensate
wife
discrimination
suffered
hands
common
law
reveals
weakness
establishes
alimony
statutes
part
parcel
larger
statutory
scheme
invidiously
discriminated
women
removing
world
work
property
compensating
making
designated
place
secure
reason
invalidate
entire
discriminatory
scheme
reason
uphold
separate
invidious
parts
appellee
argument
even
weaker
applied
facts
case
alabama
long
ago
removed
statute
elements
common
law
appellee
points
justifying
discrimination
see
ala
art
married
women
property
rights
course
upon
examination
becomes
clear
substantial
relationship
statutes
purported
objectives
may
well
indicate
objectives
statutes
goals
first
place
see
ely
centrality
limits
motivation
analysis
san
diego
rev
also
consider
whether
purportedly
compensatory
classifications
fact
penalized
women
whether
statutory
structure
legislative
history
revealed
classification
enacted
compensation
past
discrimination
califano
webster
might
argued
alabama
rule
least
relieves
state
administrative
burden
actions
husbands
wives
alimony
however
wife
also
seeking
alimony
savings
occur
hearing
required
event
even
wife
willing
forgo
alimony
appears
alabama
law
savings
still
accrue
alabama
courts
review
financial
circumstances
parties
divorce
despite
parties
views
even
settlement
reached
see
russell
russell
even
true
administrative
time
effort
conserved
give
mandatory
preference
members
either
sex
merely
accomplish
elimination
hearings
merits
make
kind
arbitrary
legislative
choice
forbidden
equal
protection
clause
reed
reed
indiana
ex
rel
anderson
brand
dispositive
effect
indiana
state
courts
available
two
potential
grounds
upholding
actions
public
school
dismissing
teacher
one
matter
purely
state
law
required
holding
dismissal
violated
contracts
clause
federal
constitution
indiana
courts
chose
latter
course
pass
upon
state
question
recognizing
state
ground
relied
upon
anderson
held
held
decision
state
reach
merits
constitutional
question
without
relying
potential
state
ground
gave
jurisdiction
done
anderson
proceeded
decide
federal
question
state
reversed
judgment
case
remanded
noting
ground
still
available
defense
school
considered
state
courts
similarly
effect
orr
stipulation
matter
substantive
state
law
yet
passed
upon
may
considered
alabama
courts
remand
justice
blackmun
concurring
assumption
language
concerning
discrimination
sphere
relevant
preference
statute
ante
imply
discrimination
always
irrelevant
assumption
language
way
cuts
back
decision
kahn
shevin
join
opinion
judgment
justice
stevens
concurring
whether
orr
continuing
contractual
obligation
pay
alimony
orr
question
alabama
law
alabama
courts
yet
decided
part
opinion
justice
rehnquist
seems
making
one
two
alternative
suggestions
decide
issue
direct
alabama
decide
issue
deciding
federal
constitutional
issue
even
agree
justice
rehnquist
view
orr
probability
success
issue
remote
deny
standing
argue
federal
question
decided
alabama
still
understand
reached
conclusion
litigation
orr
case
controversy
within
meaning
art
iii
justice
powell
dissenting
agree
justice
rehnquist
desire
reach
equal
protection
issue
case
dealt
casually
difficult
art
iii
problems
confront
us
rather
assume
answer
questions
state
law
resolution
art
iii
issue
depend
well
may
moot
equal
protection
question
case
abstain
reaching
either
constitutional
questions
present
time
repeatedly
observed
hen
federal
constitutional
claim
premised
unsettled
question
state
law
federal
stay
hand
order
provide
state
courts
opportunity
settle
underlying
question
thus
avoid
possibility
unnecessarily
deciding
constitutional
question
harris
county
moore
present
two
questions
state
law
resolution
almost
certainly
determine
outcome
litigation
least
substantially
alter
issues
presented
concedes
alabama
properly
might
regard
challenge
terms
divorce
decree
untimely
came
first
time
two
years
decree
became
final
contempt
proceeding
enforce
alimony
obligation
ante
moreover
appellant
interposed
objection
entry
decree
approval
therein
settlement
agreement
questioned
validity
alabama
statute
circumstances
provisions
divorce
decree
subject
collateral
attack
grave
questions
arise
alabama
hardly
need
said
policy
repose
embodied
prohibition
collateral
attack
especial
importance
respect
divorce
alimony
decrees
surprising
therefore
subsequent
decision
case
alabama
civil
appeals
held
claim
identical
appellant
considered
husband
raised
first
time
motion
new
trial
hughes
hughes
cert
dismissed
improvidently
granted
appeal
docketed
holding
apply
fortiori
case
constitutional
claim
raised
contempt
proceeding
second
question
state
law
concerns
formal
settlement
agreement
entered
appellant
appellee
deals
detail
property
rights
alimony
matters
dispute
parties
approved
divorce
agreement
requires
husband
pay
per
month
support
maintenance
use
comfort
wife
life
remarries
also
specifies
terms
provisions
agreement
shall
inure
binding
upon
parties
hereto
respective
heirs
assigns
executors
administrators
legal
representatives
app
although
view
agreement
obstacle
reaching
constitutional
question
acknowledge
appellant
may
continuing
obligation
former
wife
based
upon
agreement
matter
state
contract
law
quite
apart
divorce
decree
ante
appellant
collateral
attack
terms
divorce
decree
properly
entertained
alabama
law
alimony
obligation
assumed
appellant
settlement
agreement
remains
enforceable
alabama
law
question
whether
constitutionally
may
exercise
jurisdiction
dispute
close
difficult
addition
unnecessary
consider
constitutionality
alabama
divorce
statute
doctrine
bar
federal
review
judgment
appellant
order
find
case
controversy
present
necessarily
assumes
answer
questions
case
circumstances
assumptions
might
appropriate
anticipate
every
issue
ultimately
bar
realization
otherwise
substantial
federal
claim
failure
either
state
courts
parties
address
issue
ordinarily
might
indicate
present
problem
concedes
substantiality
identified
unanswered
questions
indeed
light
hughes
hughes
supra
otherwise
uncertainty
ambiguity
surrounding
case
accentuated
fact
appellant
apparently
contend
entire
divorce
decree
invalid
seeks
relief
much
decree
imposes
alimony
obligation
obligation
one
element
detailed
comprehensive
agreement
signed
parties
witnessed
respective
attorneys
agreement
made
subject
approval
divorce
apart
whether
contractual
obligation
pay
alimony
remains
binding
appellant
question
binding
effect
divorce
upon
appellee
agreed
divorce
appellant
without
contest
without
making
record
grounds
divorce
unless
assurance
valid
enforceable
order
providing
support
maintenance
lifetime
apparently
none
questions
raised
either
alabama
courts
explanation
offered
us
case
presented
manner
view
substantiality
unanswered
questions
must
conceded
serious
doubts
exist
either
presence
judicially
cognizable
case
controversy
appellant
obtaining
advantage
constitutional
claim
failure
parties
raise
questions
courts
courts
raise
sua
sponte
bind
us
record
us
said
assurance
interests
parties
fully
adversary
seeking
reasons
undisclosed
purely
advisory
opinion
constitutional
issue
considerable
importance
circumstances
find
insistence
upon
reaching
deciding
merits
quite
irreconcilable
doctrine
abstain
reaching
federal
constitutional
claim
premised
unsettled
questions
state
law
without
first
affording
state
courts
opportunity
resolve
questions
therefore
remand
case
alabama
confuses
questions
existence
case
controversy
art
iii
application
doctrine
true
failure
courts
rest
decision
ground
means
without
power
decide
case
reason
cf
murdock
memphis
wall
determine
whether
presence
fact
grounds
decision
bars
federal
considering
claim
supervisors
stanley
implies
principles
equitable
abstention
expressed
pullman
decision
never
apply
unresolved
question
state
law
referred
already
considered
case
ante
unusual
posture
case
illustrates
state
may
considered
case
without
relevant
questions
presented
see
infra
true
policies
underlie
pullman
apply
equal
force
notes
appellee
brief
alabama
civil
appeals
stated
appellee
agrees
issue
whether
alabama
alimony
laws
unconstitutional
gender
based
classification
made
statutes
ante
made
reference
alabama
authority
already
held
constitutional
attacks
divorce
statute
heard
unless
presented
time
divorce
contested
see
dale
dale
app
even
inexplicable
appellee
made
reference
hughes
hughes
ala
app
cert
dismissed
improvidently
granted
appeal
docketed
spite
decision
clear
relevance
case
pertinent
initial
decision
hughes
handed
seven
months
appellee
filed
brief
us
final
decision
alabama
announced
month
argument
case
curious
say
least
neither
party
case
raised
questions
competency
appellee
counsel
evidenced
thoroughness
settlement
agreement
negotiated
witnessed
moreover
questions
raised
neither
abstruse
difficult
view
way
case
presented
dismiss
possibility
rapprochement
parties
affect
genuineness
case
controversy
may
well
innocent
explanation
unusual
circumstances
absence
explanation
appearing
record
suggests
wisdom
deciding
constitutional
issue
justice
rehnquist
chief
justice
joins
dissenting
alabama
wives
may
awarded
alimony
upon
divorce
part
opinion
holds
alabama
alimony
statutes
may
challenged
divorced
male
never
sought
alimony
demonstrably
entitled
alimony
even
contractually
bound
pay
alimony
former
wife
without
objection
two
years
think
eagerness
invalidate
alabama
statutes
led
deal
casually
case
controversy
requirement
art
iii
constitution
architects
constitutional
form
government
assure
courts
exercising
judicial
power
trench
upon
authority
committed
branches
government
consciously
limited
judicial
branch
right
expounding
constitution
cases
judiciary
nature
actual
cases
controversies
genuinely
adverse
parties
central
art
iii
limitation
federal
judicial
power
concept
standing
standing
inquiry
focuses
party
asking
whether
personal
stake
outcome
controversy
warrant
invocation
jurisdiction
justify
exercise
remedial
powers
behalf
warth
seldin
emphasis
original
quoting
baker
carr
implicit
concept
standing
requirements
injury
fact
causation
demonstrate
personal
stake
litigation
necessary
satisfy
art
iii
party
must
suffer
distinct
palpable
injury
warth
seldin
supra
bears
fairly
traceable
causal
connection
challenged
government
action
duke
power
carolina
environmental
study
group
quoting
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
party
standing
raise
issue
questioned
therefore
relevant
inquiry
whether
shown
injury
likely
redressed
favorable
decision
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
stated
differently
party
places
question
federal
must
stand
profit
personal
interest
resolution
else
exercise
judicial
power
gratuitous
sole
claim
alabama
alimony
statutes
provide
husbands
may
required
pay
alimony
upon
divorce
violate
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
statutes
alleged
create
impermissible
classification
generally
attacked
one
two
theories
first
challenged
classification
may
confer
members
one
sex
benefit
conferred
similarly
situated
members
sex
clearly
members
excluded
class
sex
entitled
statute
benefits
sufficient
personal
stake
outcome
equal
protection
challenge
statute
invoke
power
federal
judiciary
thus
widower
standing
question
constitutionality
state
statute
granting
property
tax
exemption
widows
see
kahn
shevin
likewise
reached
merits
retired
male
wage
earner
equal
protection
challenge
federal
statute
granting
higher
monthly
benefits
similarly
situated
female
wage
earners
see
califano
webster
standing
raise
constitutional
claims
destroyed
fact
state
florida
kahn
congress
webster
capable
frustrating
victory
merely
withdrawing
challenged
statute
benefits
favored
class
rather
extending
excluded
class
see
stanton
stanton
second
challenged
statute
may
saddle
members
one
sex
burden
borne
similarly
situated
members
sex
standing
attack
statute
lies
labor
burden
example
califano
goldfarb
sustained
widower
equal
protection
challenge
provision
social
security
act
burdened
widowers
widows
task
proving
dependency
upon
deceased
spouse
order
qualify
survivor
benefits
similar
statute
invalidated
frontiero
richardson
instance
female
member
uniformed
services
unlike
male
counterparts
required
prove
spouse
dependency
order
obtain
increased
quarters
allowances
health
benefits
statutes
issue
differ
discussed
benefit
flowing
divorced
wives
derives
burden
imposed
divorced
husbands
thus
alabama
alimony
statutes
effect
create
two
gender
classifications
needy
wives
awarded
alimony
statutes
needy
husbands
financially
secure
husbands
required
pay
alimony
statutes
financially
secure
wives
appellant
orr
standing
raise
equal
protection
claim
must
therefore
analyzed
terms
classifications
long
held
order
satisfy
requirement
art
iii
standing
party
claiming
statute
unconstitutionally
withholds
particular
benefit
must
line
receive
benefit
suit
successful
supervisors
stanley
shareholders
national
bank
attacked
validity
state
property
tax
statute
contrary
federal
law
permit
deduction
personal
debts
assessed
value
bank
stock
respect
constitutional
claim
shareholders
failed
allege
existence
personal
debts
deducted
valid
statute
reasoned
render
state
statute
void
shareholder
national
bank
owes
debts
deduct
assessed
value
shares
denial
right
affect
pays
amount
tax
law
gave
right
deduction
better
condition
law
expressly
authorized
make
deduction
legal
interest
question
affects
others
invoke
protection
act
congress
case
rights
protect
sit
decide
abstract
questions
law
parties
show
interest
decided
either
way
affect
right
right
exists
delicate
duty
declaring
act
state
legislation
void
assumption
authority
uncalled
merits
case
unnecessary
assertion
rights
party
suit
holds
orr
standing
raise
equal
protection
claim
lies
burden
bears
alabama
statutes
required
pay
alimony
needy
former
spouse
similarly
situated
women
state
may
render
orr
victory
hollow
one
neutrally
extending
alimony
rights
needy
husbands
according
destroy
standing
state
may
elect
instead
away
alimony
altogether
possibility
alabama
turn
back
thousands
women
currently
dependent
alimony
checks
support
practical
matter
nonexistent
conclusion
appellant
lacks
standing
rest
strong
likelihood
alabama
respond
today
decision
passing
statute
appellant
simply
demonstrated
either
alternative
open
state
even
entire
abrogation
alimony
free
burden
alimony
obligation
issue
case
fixed
agreement
parties
appellant
makes
claim
contract
unenforceable
state
law
indeed
concedes
despite
unconstitutionality
alimony
statutes
orr
may
continuing
obligation
former
wife
based
upon
agreement
ante
casually
dismisses
matter
however
one
predict
ante
accede
offhand
dismissal
serious
obstacle
exercise
jurisdiction
duty
establish
orr
standing
claim
decided
merits
contrary
burden
meet
minimum
requirement
art
iii
establish
fact
asserted
injury
consequence
unconstitutional
statute
prospective
relief
remove
harm
warth
seldin
duke
power
carolina
environmental
study
group
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
linda
richard
appellant
carried
burden
clearly
demonstrated
acknowledgement
alimony
obligation
may
well
enforced
state
contract
law
analysis
orr
standing
aided
attempt
transform
instant
case
one
involving
race
discrimination
see
ante
course
state
law
imposing
alimony
obligations
blacks
whites
challenged
black
required
operation
statute
pay
alimony
invalidation
discriminatory
alimony
statute
relieve
burden
however
alimony
obligation
enforceable
state
contract
law
independent
challenged
alimony
statute
hardly
argue
injury
caused
challenged
statute
invalidation
statute
bring
relief
accordingly
exercise
federal
judicial
power
behalf
gratuitous
thus
inconsistent
art
iii
limitation
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
supra
conclusion
supported
linda
richard
supra
issue
linda
state
statute
subjecting
criminal
prosecution
parent
failing
support
children
state
courts
consistently
construed
statute
apply
solely
parents
legitimate
children
impose
duty
support
parents
illegitimate
children
mother
illegitimate
child
claiming
discriminatory
application
statute
violated
equal
protection
clause
sought
injunction
directing
local
district
attorney
prosecute
father
child
violating
statute
held
lacked
standing
raise
claim
doubt
suffered
injury
stemming
failure
child
father
contribute
support
payments
made
showing
failure
secure
support
payments
result
ed
nonenforcement
child
father
statute
thus
appellant
granted
requested
relief
result
jailing
child
father
prospect
prosecution
least
future
result
payment
support
best
termed
speculative
certainly
direct
relationship
alleged
injury
claim
sought
adjudicated
previous
decisions
suggest
prerequisite
standing
absent
case
ibid
ii
appellant
lack
standing
somehow
cured
fact
state
courts
reached
decided
merits
constitutional
claim
article
iii
jurisdictional
limitation
federal
courts
state
transform
abstract
hypothetical
question
case
controversy
merely
ruling
merits
doremus
board
education
held
taxpayer
lacked
requisite
financial
interest
outcome
first
amendment
challenge
state
statute
requiring
bible
reading
public
schools
dismissing
taxpayer
appeal
adverse
ruling
state
highest
held
undertake
say
state
may
render
opinion
federal
constitutional
question
even
circumstances
regarded
advisory
jurisdiction
cast
terms
case
controversy
accept
basis
review
basis
conclusive
disposition
issue
federal
law
without
review
procedure
constitute
iii
article
iii
courts
commissioned
roam
large
gratuitously
righting
perceived
wrongs
vindicating
claimed
rights
must
await
suit
one
whose
advocacy
inspired
personal
stake
victory
framers
wise
insistence
invoke
power
federal
personally
stand
profit
exercise
ensures
constitutional
issues
decided
advance
necessity
complaining
party
stand
shoes
whose
rights
champions
obedience
rules
standing
threshold
determinants
propriety
judicial
intervention
crucial
importance
constitutional
adjudication
parties
leave
halls
done
undone
except
constitutional
amendment
much
caesar
brutus
charles
first
cromwell
congress
ensure
legislative
acts
run
afoul
limitations
imposed
constitution
neither
brutus
cromwell
impose
similar
discipline
right
expounding
constitution
confined
cases
judiciary
nature
empowered
determine
requirements
art
iii
satisfied
thus
check
upon
exercise
power
sense
butler
stone
dissenting
think
deciding
merits
appellant
constitutional
claim
exercised
art
iii
requires
case
therefore
dismiss
orr
appeal
authority
doremus
board
education
supra
farrand
records
federal
convention
indeed
four
different
occasions
constitutional
convention
rejected
proposal
contained
virginia
plan
associate
justices
counsel
revision
designed
render
advice
pending
legislation
suggestions
chief
justice
member
privy
council
assist
president
president
either
house
congress
able
request
advisory
opinions
likewise
rejected
suggests
may
appellant
circuit
motion
challenging
constitutionality
statutes
construed
constituting
claim
alimony
ante
notes
event
state
courts
challenge
appellant
standing
ground
ibid
appellant
motion
made
response
order
show
cause
judged
contempt
provides
pertinent
part
wherefore
respondent
moves
order
decreeing
code
alabama
title
arbitrarily
discriminate
male
spouses
thus
violation
equal
protection
clause
constitution
thereby
unconstitutional
permanent
injunction
issued
continued
enforcement
statutes
decree
ordering
respondent
pay
complainant
alimony
rendered
null
void
app
juris
statement
construed
constituting
claim
alimony
beyond
state
courts
challenge
appellant
standing
failure
claim
entitlement
alimony
wholly
irrelevant
concerned
question
whether
orr
lacked
standing
state
law
bring
suit
alabama
case
controversy
clause
art
iii
constitutional
limitation
jurisdiction
federal
courts
see
doremus
board
education
appellant
standing
rendered
unassailable
allegations
alabama
law
man
must
maintain
wife
manner
accustomed
alimony
stipulations
reviewed
fairness
wife
incorporated
decrees
ante
interprets
allegations
argument
appellant
statute
result
lower
payments
part
ibid
first
appellant
nowhere
argues
alimony
obligation
less
statute
allegations
cited
made
support
appellant
contention
alabama
alimony
statutes
inspired
archaic
notions
proper
role
women
contention
going
merits
equal
protection
claim
rather
standing
raise
second
since
alimony
obligation
fixed
agreement
parties
appellant
seriously
made
argument
event
third
even
made
argument
attributed
patently
meritless
alimony
statute
definition
treats
husbands
wives
presumably
therefore
husband
claiming
statute
entitled
amount
sufficient
support
manner
accustomed
entitled
judicial
review
fairness
alimony
stipulation
incorporation
decree
far
rendering
orr
standing
unassailable
allegations
seized
upon
utterly
beside
point
suggests
alabama
courts
free
hold
constitutionality
divorce
decree
entered
without
constitutional
objection
challenged
contempt
proceedings
reason
concern
today
decision
nullify
existing
alimony
obligations
alabama
males
currently
order
pay
alimony
however
need
wait
contempt
proceedings
lodged
raise
constitutional
challenge
rather
may
simply
petition
relief
unconstitutional
divorce
decree
recent
cases
required
showing
substantial
likelihood
relief
requested
redress
injury
claimed
satisfy
second
prong
constitutional
standing
requirement
duke
power
carolina
environmental
study
group
seizes
gratuitous
observation
linda
proper
party
challenge
constitutionality
statute
parent
legitimate
child
prosecuted
statute
challenge
allege
parents
illegitimate
children
may
prosecuted
statute
unfairly
discriminates
parents
legitimate
children
statement
standing
challenge
discriminatory
criminal
statute
quoted
passage
faulted
clearly
parent
prosecuted
statute
satisfy
causation
requirements
standing
invalidation
statute
totally
remove
prosecuted
parent
harm
instant
case
however
admits
today
decision
may
well
gratuitous
insofar
appellant
orr
concerned
warth
seldin