In a 25-page opinion, Justice Rita Garman wrote that "Max and Erla were free to distribute their bounty as they saw fit and to favor grandchildren of whose life choices they approved" even though their decision might be "offensive" to other family members or to outsiders.

Agudath Israel of America, the National Council of Young Israel and the Union of Orthodox Jewish restriction clause - is what Max Feinberg inserted in his will and was at the center of the case.

Feinberg, a successful Chicago dentist, was raised as an Orthodox Jew, a tradition he no longer followed as an adult. Yet by all accounts, Jewish practice was an important part of his and his wife's life. They belonged to a Conservative synagogue and observed Jewish tradition and holidays.

Of greater relevance to the case, Feinberg apparently worried about the eventual disappearance of the Jewish people due to intermarriage and assimilation. His fears reached greater heights when he discovered that a grandson was dating a non-Jewish woman and, indeed, taking her to the prom at Niles West High School, according to Michael Feinberg, whose son, Aron, was the young man in question.

"He was taking this non-Jewish girl to his high school prom. That was the reason for the clause. (Max) wanted to keep the traditions and feelings of Judaism within the family, to keep the family name," Michael Feinberg told the Chicago Jewish News in July 2008.

The "Jewish clause" stated that none of his grandchildren, or their children or grandchildren, would inherit the $250,000 Feinberg had allotted to each one if they married a non-Jewish person, unless the spouse converted to Judaism within a year of the marriage. Those who did not marry a Jew were to be considered "deceased" for legal purposes.

Max Feinberg died in 1986 at age 77, with Michael Feinberg and his sister, Leila Taylor, becoming executors of the trust for Erla, who died in 2003.

Erla Feinberg followed Max's wishes while slightly changing the method of distribution of the assets in the two trusts her husband left her. She bequeathed $250,000 to Jon Taylor, the one grandson who had married a Jewish woman, while keeping her husband's provision of disinheriting and considering as "deceased" the four who had not. She directed that the shares of the "deceased" grandchildren be paid to Michael Feinberg and Leila Taylor.

By the time of her death, all five grandchildren had married, four of them to non-Jewish spouses. Those four received nothing from their grandparents' estate.

Erla's death set off a spate of lawsuits and counter-suits among Feinberg family members. One essentially pits Michael Feinberg against his daughter, Michele Feinberg Trull, who has argued that the beneficiary restriction clause violated public policy because it interferes with the right of an individual to marry a person of his or her choosing and encourages divorce, which is contrary to the public interest.

Another lawsuit accuses Michael Feinberg and Leila Taylor of mishandling their parents' investment funds. They tried to get the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that their daughter had no standing to sue because she was "dead" for inheritance purposes.

In June, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court confirmed a lower court decision that the "Jewish clause" was unenforceable. The basis of the justices' argument was that the clause was invalid because it interfered with the right of an individual to marry "a person of their own choosing." In a concurring opinion, one justice, Patrick J. Quinn, wrote that provisions such as the "Jewish clause" could result in courts being required to enforce bigotry, such as individuals disinheriting heirs if they married someone of the wrong race. Justice Alan Greiman wrote a strongly worded dissent.

In reversing the appellate court's ruling, Illinois' high court primarily looked at the way Erla Feinberg distributed her and her husband's assets, said Steven Resnicoff, co-director of the DePaul College of Law's Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies. It sidestepped the issue of whether or not Max Feinberg could disinherit his grandchildren on the basis of what they might do in the future.

At the time of Erla's death, all the children were already married. "Mrs. Feinberg distributed the assets and she chose not to distribute to the people who married out of the faith, and that is OK," Resnicoff said. "The only thing that was a question was, could (Max Feinberg) tie their hands in the future. When Mrs. Feinberg gave the money," the four grandchildren had already married the non-Jewish spouses.

Erla Feinberg "did not impose a condition intended to control future decisions of their grandchildren regarding marriage or the practice of Judaism; rather, she made a bequest to reward, at the time of her death, those grandchildren whose lives most closely embraced the values she and Max cherished," Garman wrote in the opinion.

The court passed no judgment on whether Max Feinberg's actions were wrong or right, which is as it should be, Resnicoff said. "We don't need to look to the secular courts for what is morally right or wrong," he said.

Whatever the basis for the decision, many Jews are hailing it. Michael Durkin, Michael Feinberg's attorney, said his client "feels gratified that his father's wishes and his mother's wishes will be honored." He said the case could conceivably be brought before the United States Supreme Court, but those justices might not accept it because any constitutional issues were dismissed by the Illinois court. Neither Michele Feinberg Trull nor her attorneys could be reached for comment.

Andrea Schleifer, a Chicago attorney and president of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Jewish bar association, said she thought the high court's decision was "extremely well thought out. The most significant thing to me is that they called the provision the 'beneficiary restriction clause' whereas the appellate court telegraphed something when it called it 'the Jewish clause.' I thought that was especially noteworthy, as it almost signaled that bias is coming when they called it 'the Jewish clause.'"

Schleifer added that "even though I wouldn't necessarily agree that (what Max Feinberg did) is a great thing to do, I think it was absolutely the right decision. People should be able to give their money to whoever they want to give their money to. As they said, although these plans might be offensive, Max and Erla were free to distribute their bounty as they saw fit."

Also of importance to Schleifer is the fact that the decision was unanimous. "They came to a thoughtful and thorough decision. They addressed it without blinders on, without preconceived notions that (Max Feinberg's will) must be discriminatory," she said.

Justice Alan Greiman, who has since retired from the appellate court, said, "I am pleased that the Supreme Court followed my dissent," which, he noted, closed with the line "Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream."

Resnicoff, meanwhile, said he believes personally that the Supreme Court decision was the correct one. "Is it morally right to give a carrot to your children so that they follow your faith? I think it is," he said. He added that he has a different view of what has been referred to as the "dead hand" of a benefactor who controls his heirs' actions far into the future through his will.

To him, he said, "that is the hand that perspired and slaved to accumulate wealth and has the right to give it to the person he wants to give it to."