Trimble v. Gordon
430 U.S. 762 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state intestate succession law that creates an absolute bar to an illegitimate child inheriting from their father, while allowing inheritance from the mother, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it is not substantially related to permissible state interests and unnecessarily excludes children whose paternity has been formally established.
Facts:
- Deta Mona Trimble is the illegitimate daughter of Jessie Trimble and Sherman Gordon.
- Trimble, Gordon, and Deta Mona lived together as a family in Chicago from 1970 until 1974.
- In 1973, an Illinois court entered a paternity order that formally adjudicated Sherman Gordon to be Deta Mona's father.
- The court ordered Gordon to pay child support, which he did until his death.
- Gordon openly acknowledged Deta Mona as his child.
- In 1974, Sherman Gordon died intestate (without a will), leaving an estate consisting of a car worth approximately $2,500.
- Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act in effect at the time permitted illegitimate children to inherit only from their mothers, not their fathers, through intestate succession.
Procedural Posture:
- Jessie Trimble, as mother and next friend of Deta Mona Trimble, filed a petition for determination of heirship in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
- The Circuit Court ruled against Deta Mona, finding she was not an heir under § 12 of the Illinois Probate Act and holding the statute constitutional.
- Trimble appealed the decision directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- The Illinois Supreme Court, relying on its recent decision in a similar case, In re Estate of Karas, affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment.
- The Trimbles (appellants) sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Illinois statute that prohibits an illegitimate child from inheriting by intestate succession from her father, while allowing a legitimate child to do so, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Powell, J.
Yes. The Illinois statute violates the Equal Protection Clause because classifications based on illegitimacy, while not subject to 'strict scrutiny,' must be substantially related to permissible state interests and cannot be justified by broad generalizations. The Court rejected Illinois's asserted interest in promoting legitimate family relationships, holding that penalizing a child for the conduct of their parents is illogical, unjust, and ineffectual. While acknowledging the state's interest in the orderly disposition of property and preventing spurious claims of paternity, the Court found the statute was not 'carefully tuned' to achieve this goal. By imposing a total statutory disinheritance, the law unnecessarily excluded children like Deta Mona, whose paternity had already been formally adjudicated by a court. The availability of writing a will does not save an otherwise unconstitutional intestacy statute. The Court's analysis in this case supersedes its more deferential approach in Labine v. Vincent.
Dissenting - Rehnquist, J.
No. The Illinois statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent argues that the majority is improperly substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature and acting as a 'council of revision' for state laws. The Court's means-end analysis represents an 'endless tinkering with legislative judgments' for which it has no special expertise. The Illinois legislature was addressing the legitimate and difficult problem of proving paternity in intestate succession. The statute it enacted was not 'mindless and patently irrational,' and the fact that it could have been drafted differently or more comprehensively is irrelevant for constitutional purposes under the rational basis standard of review that should apply. The Court should defer to the state legislature's judgment in this area.
Analysis:
This decision established a heightened, intermediate level of scrutiny for classifications based on illegitimacy under the Equal Protection Clause. By requiring such laws to be 'carefully tuned' to state interests, the Court moved away from the more deferential approach of Labine v. Vincent. The ruling invalidated absolute statutory bars to paternal inheritance for illegitimate children, especially in cases where paternity has been formally established. It has had a significant impact on state probate laws, forcing legislatures to adopt more nuanced statutes that allow illegitimate children to prove paternity and inherit from their fathers, thereby protecting both the state's interest in orderly administration and the constitutional rights of the child.
Unlock the full brief for Trimble v. Gordon