In Reeves v. Beardall, Executor (1941), the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with a case involving an inheritance dispute. The appellant, Mrs. Reeves, was contesting her late husband's will which left his entire estate to his children from a previous marriage instead of her. She claimed that she had been coerced into signing a prenuptial agreement waiving any rights to her husband’s property upon his death and therefore it should be deemed invalid. The Florida state court initially ruled in favor of Mr. Beardall, the executor of the deceased's estate and upheld the validity of the prenuptial agreement signed by Mrs.Reeves before marrying her late husband. However, on appeal to U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that under Florida law at that time coercion or duress could invalidate such agreements if proven true.The case was remanded back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Reeves v. Beardall, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold Florida's inheritance law was a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that there was no rational basis for treating illegitimate children differently from legitimate ones in terms of their rights to inherit property from their deceased parents. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on societal norms and traditions as justification for this discrimination, asserting that such reasoning could be used to justify any form of inequality or injustice. Instead, he insisted that laws should reflect principles of fairness and justice rather than perpetuating outdated prejudices and stereotypes.