Reed v. Reed
Later in the 1900s, stereotyping in law still existed but it began to be questioned more frequently. When a divorced husband and wife went to court for the estate of their son; who died, the man automatically got it for no other reason than the fact that he was a man. The Idaho statute in place preferred that the estate go to the male when there was no will, claiming it was to decrease workload. The question in this case is why the state chose the male as the automatic recipient and not the female despite the fact that women were seen as the primary caregivers. Idaho used stereotypical judgments; assuming the man was the provider and protector of their son, to determine the law instead of taking it case by case.
They assumed that the man would be a better fit when it came to being responsible for money and other parts of an estate instead of basing their decision on merit. Although the case showed stereotyping, the court did reverse and remand the decisions, realizing that deciding solely on sex was unlawful. This was a turning point because sex stereotyping began to be seen with intermediate scrutiny.