Mary Hall - in Re Hall

In Re Hall

In May 1882, Thomas McManus submitted the brief in support of Hall in the case labeled In re Hall. He argued that “save sex,” there was no other reason why Hall should not be found to be qualified to be admitted to the Bar. Noting that women preached in churches, practiced medicine, taught in the classroom, and acted as executors, guardians, trustees, and overseers, he claimed that the language of the statute regulating attorneys “neither expressly or impliedly exclude women” and that “attorney” was defined as a “person.” Opposing counsel was Goodwin Collier, who argued that at the time the statute was enacted, women were excluded from the Bar and the legislature’s failure to change the statute indicated its intent to continue to exclude women.

On July 19, 1882, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors issued its decision in favor of Hall. Chief Justice John Park wrote for the Court and took the position, contrary to Collier’s argument, that if the legislature wanted to exclude women, it would have rewritten the statute to expressly exclude them. Park explained his opinion, stating, “We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as far as possible, in favor of equality of rights. All restrictions upon human liberty, all claims for special privileges, are to be regarded as having the presumption of law against them, and as standing upon their defense, and can be sustained, if at all by valid legislation, only by the clear expression or clear implication of the law.” This decision had the effect of holding that the laws of equal protection applied to women because he in effect rejected the “entire jurisprudence of separate spheres.” It has been said that this decision as “ne of the greatest decisions in all of Connecticut jurisprudence.”