In Orr v. Orr, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's alimony laws were unconstitutional because they discriminated on the basis of gender, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was brought by a man who had been ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife under Alabama law which stipulated only men could be required to pay alimony after divorce. The court held in a 6-3 decision that there was no rational basis for such gender-based discrimination and struck down the law as unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Orr v. Orr, Justice Rehnquist argued that Alabama's alimony statute was not discriminatory against men because it reflected a reasonable state policy aimed at compensating women for past discrimination in opportunities. He believed that the majority had overstepped its bounds by applying strict scrutiny to gender-based classifications and suggested that such an approach could lead to judicial intrusion into legislative matters. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were other remedies available to Mr. Orr besides challenging the constitutionality of the law; namely, he could have sought relief from his alimony obligations on grounds of changed circumstances or inability to pay.