Bradwell v. Illinois: When Law and Ladies Didn't Mix (Unless It Was Gossip About the Case)
Ah, 1873. A simpler time, right? Wrong! Buckle up, history buffs and legal eagles (or those who just like a good courtroom drama), because we're diving into the fascinating, frustrating, and frankly unbelievable case of Bradwell v. Illinois.
 |
| What is Bradwell V Illinois |
Myra Makes Her Case: A Lady and the Law
Myra Bradwell, a woman with a thirst for justice and a brain sharper than a judge's gavel, passed the Illinois bar exam with flying colors. But here's the kicker: Illinois, in its infinite wisdom (or lack thereof), decided that women weren't cut out for the courtroom. Can you imagine the judge's chambers back then? Probably a lot less tea and crumpets, and a whole lot more "women belong in the kitchen" rhetoric.
Tip: Focus more on ideas, less on words.
Undeterred, Myra, bless her heart, took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. "Surely," she thought, "the highest court in the land will see the injustice here!"
The Supreme Court Takes a Dive (Off the Deep End)
Well, Myra, about that... In a decision that would make Ruth Bader Ginsburg spin in her grave (if she were even capable of such a thing), the Supreme Court, by an earth-shattering 8-1 vote, ruled against Myra. Their reasoning? The right to practice law wasn't covered by this fancy new thing called the Fourteenth Amendment. Apparently, the "privileges or immunities" it guaranteed didn't include the right to a killer legal career for women.
Tip: Share this article if you find it helpful.
But Wait, There's More! (Because Lawyers Love Drama)
The concurring opinion (basically, some of the justices high-fiving each other and explaining why they agreed) is a doozy. It included gems like: "[t]he paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother." Yikes. Talk about underestimating a woman's potential!
 |
Myra Might Have Lost the Battle, But Won the War (Eventually)
QuickTip: Stop scrolling, read carefully here.
Thankfully, Myra's fight wasn't in vain. It may have taken almost two decades, but Illinois finally came to its senses and granted her a license. This case, though a major setback at the time, became a rallying cry for the women's rights movement, paving the way for future generations to shatter glass ceilings in courtrooms across the nation.
So, what does this all mean?
QuickTip: Revisit posts more than once.
This case highlights the long road to gender equality. It's a reminder of the battles fought and the progress made. But hey, at least it gives us a good story to tell, right?
FAQs: Bradwell v. Illinois Edition
How to become a lawyer in 1873 (if you're a man): Be born with a Y chromosome and convince the good ol' boys' club you're worthy.How to become a lawyer in 1873 (if you're a woman): See above, but replace "convince" with "battle" and "worthy" with "completely underestimated." How significant was Bradwell v. Illinois? Though a loss for Myra, it became a landmark case for the fight for women's rights in the legal profession.How long did it take for Myra Bradwell to get her law license? Nearly 20 years! Perseverance is key, folks.Is the decision in Bradwell v. Illinois still relevant today? Not in the sense that women can't be lawyers anymore (thank goodness!), but it serves as a historical reminder of the ongoing fight for equality.
 |
