Imagine a time, not so long ago in the grand sweep of history, when the very idea of a woman practicing law was met with outright dismissal, not just by society, but by the highest courts in the land. This was the reality for Myra Bradwell, a determined woman who, in the late 19th century, found herself at the center of a landmark Supreme Court case that would highlight the deeply ingrained gender biases of the era: Bradwell v. Illinois.
Myra Bradwell was no stranger to the legal world. She had married a lawyer and even studied law under her husband's tutelage. By 1869, she had passed the Illinois bar examination, a significant achievement. Yet, when she sought admission to the bar, she was denied. The reason? She was a woman.
Undeterred, Bradwell appealed her case, arguing that the state's refusal to grant her a license violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically its Equal Protection Clause. She believed the Constitution should protect her right to practice law, regardless of her gender. It was a bold stand, challenging the prevailing norms that confined women to domestic roles.
The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Court's majority upheld the Illinois Supreme Court's decision, it was Justice Joseph P. Bradley's concurring opinion that truly laid bare the prevailing societal attitudes. He didn't just see a legal question; he saw a divine order. Bradley articulated a widely held belief that women's "natural and proper timidity and delicacy" made them unfit for the rigors of many professions. He famously declared that a woman's "paramount destiny and mission" was to be a wife and mother, a view he attributed to "the law of the Creator."
This perspective, while shocking to modern ears, was deeply influential at the time. The Court's decision in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) essentially reinforced the idea that states had broad power to set qualifications for professions, and that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections, particularly the privileges and immunities clause, did not extend to the right to practice law based on gender. The Court's narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, echoing its stance in the Slaughterhouse Cases decided just a day prior, meant that sex-discriminatory laws would continue to stand for decades.
It would take many more years, and countless other legal battles, before the Fourteenth Amendment would be interpreted to strike down gender-based discrimination in professional licensing. Bradwell v. Illinois stands as a stark reminder of how deeply entrenched societal beliefs can shape legal outcomes, and how the fight for equality is often a long and arduous journey, paved with the courage of individuals like Myra Bradwell who dared to challenge the status quo.
