Frontiero v. Richardson
Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1973 that addressed gender discrimination within military benefits. The case arose when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the Air Force, challenged a federal law that automatically granted male service members the ability to claim their spouses as dependents, while female service members were required to demonstrate that their husbands relied on them for over half of their financial support. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Frontiero with an 8-1 decision, declaring that the gender-based distinctions in the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This case is significant in the context of gender equality, as it marked a critical moment in the struggle against sex discrimination, highlighting how such classifications should be subjected to heightened scrutiny similar to racial discrimination. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. emphasized that sex is an immutable characteristic and underscored the historical context of discrimination faced by women. The ruling contributed to the broader conversation about gender rights and laid groundwork for future legal challenges regarding equal treatment under the law. Overall, Frontiero v. Richardson remains a pivotal reference point in discussions surrounding gender equity, military policy, and constitutional law.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Date: May 14, 1973
Citation: 411 U.S. 677
Issue: Sex discrimination
Significance: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that discrimination based on sex is contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but only a plurality of the justices recognized all gender classifications as inherently suspect.
A federal law automatically allowed a male member of the armed service to claim his spouse as a dependent, but a female member did not receive this benefit unless she could show that her spouse depended on her for more than half of his support. Sharron Frontiero, a married Air Force lieutenant, asserted that the policy was unconstitutional. By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld her claim.
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., speaking for a four-member plurality, wanted to declare that all gender classifications were suspect, which would require that they be judged by the same stringent standards accorded to classifications based on race. He noted that sex was an immutable characteristic, that it had long been the basis of invidious discrimination, and that congressional endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment demonstrated public acknowledgment of the problem. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., speaking for three justices, argued that a decision on the level of scrutiny was not necessary to decide the case. In addition, because the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (which never took place) might settle the scrutiny issue, the Court should not preempt a political decision, which the Constitution reserved to the states.
In Craig v. Boren (1976), the Court returned to the issue of whether to apply the rational basis or strict scrutiny test when examining allegations of sex discrimination, and the majority agreed on a compromise: heightened, or intermediate, scrutiny.