In the Kirchberg v. Feenstra case of 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law allowing husbands to unilaterally dispose of jointly owned property without their wives' consent was unconstitutional. Joan Feenstra challenged this law after her husband used it to take out a mortgage on their home without her knowledge or approval. The court held that such laws violated women's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating them as inferior and dependent upon men in matters relating to property rights. This ruling marked an important step towards gender equality in marital property laws across America.

In the dissenting opinion for Kirchberg v. Feenstra, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a Louisiana law allowing husbands unilateral control over jointly owned property was an unwarranted intrusion into state matters. He contended that it wasn't within the Court's jurisdiction to decide whether this law was fair or not; instead, it should be left up to individual states and their citizens. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were other legal avenues available for Mrs. Feenstra if she felt her rights had been violated - namely divorce proceedings where marital assets would be divided equitably under Louisiana law. Therefore, in his view, striking down this statute on constitutional grounds was unnecessary and inappropriate judicial activism.