appointment of her estranged husband as the administrator of their deceased child’s estate, in accordance with an Idaho law that categorically favored men over women in matters of this sort, was a denial of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

这一系列[注: 一系列 拼音： 解释： 1.犹言一连串。-yixilie]司法裁定中的首要案例是对里德控里德（1971年）一案的裁定。 在此案中，最高法院支持爱达荷州一位妇女的要求。她声称，该州法院指定与她分居的丈夫作为他们已故孩子的遗产管理人。这一指定是根据该州在此类案件中直截了当地偏向男性而非女性的一条法律，最高法院认为这条法律背弃了第14条修正案中法律的平等保护条款。

 

In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), the Burger justices declared a federal law unconstitutional as a violation of the equal-protection requirement. The law in question regarded the dependents of male military personnel as automatically entitled to a basic subsistence allowance, but required the dependents of female military personnel to prove their actual dependency before they could qualify for an allowance.

 

在佛朗提尔控对理查德森一案(1973年)中，博格法院的法官们宣布一条联邦法律违宪，因为它违反了平等保护的要求。受到质疑的这条法律，认为男性军职人员的被抚养人可自动获得基本补助金，但要求女性军职人员的被抚养人必须先证明被抚养关系的真实性

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 下一页