Baer and Goldstein, pp. 61-68.118-131 (4th edition)
Syllabus
A married woman Air Force officer (hereafter appellant) sought increased benefits for her husband as a “dependent” under 37 U.S.C. §§ 401 403, and 10 U.S.C. §§ 1072 1076. Those statutes provide, solely for administrative convenience, that spouses of male members of the uniformed services are dependents for purposes of obtaining increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits, but that spouses of female members are not dependents unless they are in fact, dependent for over one-half of their support. When her application was denied for failure to satisfy the statutory dependency standard, appellant and her husband brought this suit in District Court, contending that the statutes deprived servicewomen of due process. From that Court’s adverse ruling, they took a direct appeal.
Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 682-691; 691-692.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that 37 U.S.C. §§ 401 403 and 10 U.S.C. §§ 1072 1076, as inherently suspect statutory classifications based on sex, are so unjustifiably discriminatory as to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 682-691.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART concluded that the challenged statutes work an invidious discrimination in violation of the Constitution. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71. P. 691.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, while agreeing that the statutes deprive servicewomen of due process, concluded that, in the light of Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, and the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment has been submitted to the States for ratification, it is inappropriate to decide at this time whether sex is a suspect classification. Pp. 691-692.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband, Joseph Frontiero. As federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents. However, husbands of female members must prove that their wives contributed over one-half of their support. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was denied.
Question: Are the different requirements for a military member’s spouse based on gender for dependent benefits a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: 8-1
Reasoning: The Court held that the federal law violated the Due Process Clause as it infringed the same opportunities based on gender. Strict Scrutiny was applied. Justice Brennan argued that the case should be subject to strict scrutiny, as the gender-classification in the federal law deemed it appropriate to do so.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Summary: A U.S. Air Force Lieutenant, Sharron Frontiero, had wanted to add her husband as a beneficiary for benefits under the U.S. Military. There was a federal law that allowed male service members to automatically receive benefits for their spouses. On the other hand, female service members had to provide additional documentation to prove that their husbands are dependents and eligible to receive the same benefits. Fontiero challenged the law and claimed that it was a form of gender discrimination. Furthermore, it was argued that the federal law was in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Question: Is the federal law automatically granting benefits to male service members for their spouses in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: Yes, the Court found that the federal law was gender discrimination and thus unconstitutional.
Reasoning: The Court had reasoned, through an application of strict scrutiny, that the federal government’s justification of the federal law had no legitimate cause for gender discrimination.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Facts: Forertiero, a woman in the military, wanted their husband to depend on her so they both could benefit from veteran service. However, she had to prove her husband’s dependency, and the male did not make more than ½ his wife. These benefits would be granted automatically if she was a man. They required her to take extra steps.
Issue: Does the federal law requiring the criteria for males and females discriminate against women under the 5th Amendment of due process?
Holding. Yes (8-1), the Supreme Court argues this violates the 5th Amendment. Under strict judicial scrutiny, the court found that treating men and women differently if they are similarly stated was nonsensical. (Reed v. Reed) Concluding that the state law is arbitrary legislation to sex discrimination. The court agreed
Social Implications: The government automatically assumes that men are the providers, not women. The administration was convinced men were always the breadwinners.
Frontiero v. Richardson 1973
Facts: a female military member (Frontiero) sought dependency status for her husband, this status gave increased housing allowances and increased medical benefits. Men in the military automatically received the increased benefits if they checked “married” on their papers, without needing to file anything else. Women needed to prove that they were the primary providers in order to receive the same benefits. Frontiero paid just under half of her family’s income and did not qualify for increased benefits; she challenged the federal law under the due process clause of the fifth amendment.
Question: Did the federal policy violate the fifth amendment due process clause?
Decision: Yes, the law was an unreasonable and arbitrary use of gender discrimination which imposed additional requirements on female applicants. This law required additional steps for women, making it unequal protection under the law. The court was split under deciding if gender triggered strict scrutiny, but ultimately decided against it.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Facts:
Fronteiro, a lieutenant in the air force, needed dependent status for her husband. Males automatically achieve the dependent status for their wifes, on the other hand, Fronteiro had to prove that she made over half of the household income.
Issue:
Did federal law that requires different qualifications for women and men violate the due process claim in discrimination against women?
Decision:
Yes
Reasoning:
The law was discriminatory based on the policy being burdensome on servicewomen, and not servicemen. Furthermore it was discriminatory due to servicemen receiving increased benefits that women could not achieve.
Case: Frontiero v. Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero wanted to add her husband as a beneficiary for benefits under the U.S. Military. Federal law allowed male service members to receive benefits for their wives automatically. In contrast, female service members needed additional info proving their husbands were dependents to receive the same benefits. Frontiero argued this was a form of gender discrimination and was in violation of the due process clause under the Fifth Amendment. The government claimed the policy reduced administrative costs since men typically are not dependent on their wives like women are dependent on their husbands.
Statement of issues: Since this federal law was discriminatory against gender, is it a violation of the due process clause?
Decision:8-1 The court struck down due to the gender discrimination being unconstitutional.
Reasoning: Strict scrutiny should be at the same standard it would be used for racial discrimination as the discrimination was based on stereotypes. The court ruled that the government’s justification for gender-based discrimination held no grounds, violating equal protection principles.
Summary: This case strengthened protections against gender discrimination. It would be the foundation for using intermediate scrutiny since there was no majority for strict scrutiny.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Facts:
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, sought to claim her husband as a dependent to receive military benefits, such as housing and medical allowances. However, federal law automatically granted these benefits to male service members’ wives, while female service members had to prove that their husbands were financially dependent on them. Frontiero’s request was denied, leading her to challenge the law as unconstitutional gender discrimination.
Issue:
Does the federal law that requires female service members to prove their spouses’ financial dependency, while granting automatic benefits to male service members’ wives, violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Holding:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated based on gender, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning:
The plurality opinion, led by Justice Brennan, argued that gender-based classifications should be to the strict scrutiny, the same standard applied to racial classifications. The Court reasoned that the law was based on outdated gender stereotypes and imposed an unnecessary burden on female service members. Since the government failed to provide a compelling justification for the different treatment, the law was deemed unconstitutional.
Dissent:
Justice Rehnquist was the sole dissenter. He did not provide a detailed written dissent but generally opposed applying heightened scrutiny to gender-based classifications.
Impact:
Frontiero v. Richardson was a significant step in advancing gender equality under the law.
Case Name: Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Citation: 411 U.S. 677
Facts:
Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force officer, sought dependent benefits for her husband, Joseph Frontiero. Under federal law, male service members automatically received housing and medical benefits for their wives, but female service members had to prove their husbands were financially dependent to qualify for the same benefits. Frontiero challenged this policy, arguing that it discriminated based on gender, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Issue:
Did the federal law requiring female service members to prove their spouse’s financial dependence, while granting benefits automatically to male service members, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the law unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
A plurality of the Court (four justices), led by Justice Brennan, argued that gender-based classifications should be subject to “strict scrutiny,” the same standard used for race-based discrimination. The Court reasoned that laws based on sex stereotypes reinforce traditional gender roles and disadvantage women, violating the principles of equal protection.
However, since there was no majority agreement on applying strict scrutiny, later cases (Craig v. Boren in 1976) would establish intermediate scrutiny as the standard for gender discrimination cases.
Significance:
Frontiero v. Richardson was a landmark case in gender equality, reinforcing that sex-based discrimination requires heightened judicial scrutiny. While the Court did not officially establish strict scrutiny for gender discrimination, this case set the stage for future rulings that provided stronger constitutional protections against sex-based discrimination in areas like employment, education, and government policies.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Citation: 411 U.S. 677
Facts: U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero sought a spousal dependency allowance for her husband, Joseph Frontiero under the statutes 37 U.S.C. §§ 401 403, and 10 U.S.C §§ 1072 1076. These statutes ensured, for administrative convenience, dependence for the spouses of male service members; however, they required the spouses of female service members to prove the spouse depends on the service member for over half of their support. The Frotiero’s failed to meet the provisions for spousal dependency as laid out in the statutes. The Frontiero’s argue that these statutes violate 5th Amendment due process.
Issue(s): Did the federal statutes provisions of spousal dependency violate the 5th Amendment’s due process clause
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: Per Brennan: The Court found that the statute perpetuated dissimilar treatment of similarly situated men and women, a violation of 5th Amendment due process. Because male and female service members only differing characteristics relevant to this law is that of gender, the statute is arbitrary discriminatory on the basis of sex, similar to the decision in Reed v. Reed.
Summary/Significance: While justices could not agree on a standard of review, Justice Brennan’s plurality opinion applied a strict standard of review, classifying sex discrimination as it would racial discrimination. Other Justices concurring opinions would show that they disagreed with this classification, deciding the case on precedent more closely aligned with Reed v. Reed interpretation.
Name: Frontiero v. Richardson
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant, sought to claim her husband as a dependent to receive increased housing and medical benefits. Under federal law, male service members automatically received dependent benefits for their wives, but female service members had to prove their husbands were financially dependent. Frontiero challenged this policy, arguing it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating based on sex.
Q: Did the federal law that imposed different dependency requirements for male and female service members violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the law unconstitutionally discriminated based on sex and violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
Reasoning: 4 justices argued that classifications based on sex should receive strict scrutiny, similar to race-based discrimination. They reasoned that gender-based laws often reinforced outdated stereotypes and were inherently suspect under the Constitution. However, the Court did not officially establish strict scrutiny as the standard for gender discrimination at this time.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Powell agreed the law was unconstitutional but did not join the call for strict scrutiny, arguing that the Court should wait for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) before deciding on heightened protections for gender discrimination.
Case: Sharron and Joseph Frontiero v. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Defence
Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: Under national law, men in U.S. uniformed service receive additional housing allowance and medical benefits if they are married(to a woman); however, for women to receive these additional funds if married(to a man), they must be able to prove that they pay for more than half of their husbands living cost.
Joseph Frontiero was a veteran who received $205 monthly from GI benefits while he attended college, while Sharron Frontiero was a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. Joseph’s living cost was $354 a month, and because he received $205 a month, Sharron could only claim to pay just under half of his living expenses. Due to this, she could not collect the additional funds that would have otherwise been guaranteed if she had been a man.
Issue: Does the national law, which grants married men a benefit not given to similarly situated married women, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: Yes.
Reasoning:
Per Brennan, J., joined by Douglas, J., White, J., and Marshall, J., using strict judicial scrutiny, leaving it to the government to prove that the administrative decision saved the government significant funds and was not just for administrative convenience, something the government could not prove. Due to the government’s inability to prove that it wasn’t solely for administrative convenience, the Court argues the law is the “very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the [Constitution], citing Reed v. Reed, 380 U.S. 89(1965)
Justice Stewart concurred, stating the statutes were “an invidious discrimination” violating the Fifth Amendment.
Per Powell, J., joined by Blackmun, C.J., concurred that the statutes were unconstitutional but disagreed that they should be subject to strict scrutiny and unnecessary to hold all classifications under sex suspect; instead, sex classifications should be subject to close judicial scrutiny. They cite Reed v. Reed, stating that the decision is in agreeance with the reluctance to hold all classifications of sex as suspect. The Court cannot act prematurely by declaring it suspect and should wait for the legislative branch to decide on the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it weakens democracy when the Court makes decisions before due time.
Dissenting: Rehnquist, J., agreed with the district court’s rationale. He also emphasizes that in Reed, qualified women were excluded, whereas in this case, it does not exclude qualified women.
Significance: Frontiero set a precedent of heightened scrutiny regarding sex classification, delivering more effective legal protections.
Case: Sharron and Joseph Frontiero v. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Defense
Citation: 411 US 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a United States Air Force lieutenant, sought dependency support while supporting her husband in school. Male military members are automatically paid more when they marry. Still, married female service members would not receive the additional pay unless they could prove that they provide more than half the means for their husbands to live. Frontiero claimed that this policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
Issue: Does the law that provides different requirements for military spousal benefits based on whether the serviceperson is male or female violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: The court decided sex is an immutable characteristic subject to strict scrutiny. The law’s discrimination based on sex did not serve compelling government interest, citing that efficiency is not justification for sex-based inequality.
Frontiero v Richardson 1973
411 US 677 (1973)
Facts:
In this case, Sharron Frontiero was in the military; she was an Air Force Luitenant who was looking to get dependent benefits for her husband, who was a full-time student. This was because male military members were allowed to get dependent benefits for their wives whether or not the wives had an income. However, the female military members had to demonstrate that their husbands depended on their wives for more than half of their support in order to receive the benefits that were granted to the partners of military members. In this case, Frontiero claimed that the difference that was made between male and female service members was discriminatory and in violation of the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Issue:
Was the different treatment towards women and males in the military unconstitutional?
Decision/Action:
Yes
Reasoning:
The court, although divided, held that the statute discriminated against women and that the assumptions were “overboard generalizations” about how much women depended on men. Some justices also argued that sex should be under strict scrutiny (which means that it should be under the highest standard of review), like race. The difference in treatment was also not based on any legitimate reason; therefore, the difference in treatment was not upheld.
Concurring Arguments:
Justices Powell, Burger, and Blackmun
Dissenting Arguments:
Justice Rehnquist
Voting Coalitions:
8-1
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 US 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a USAF lieutenant, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law provided the wives of military members automatically are dependents; husbands were not dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over 1/2 of their support. Frontiero’s request for her husband’s dependent status was declined.
Issue: Did a federal law requiring different qualification criteria for male and female spousal dependency unconstitutionally discriminate against women?
Holding: Yes, the federal statute commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated” which violated the Due Process clause and the equal protection clause.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Facts: Sharron Frontiero was a United States Air Force lieutenant, and she wanted a dependent allowance for her husband. According to federal law, the wives of members of the military become dependent immediately. When it came to the husbands of people in the military, they were not accepted as dependents unless they depended on their wives’ support for over one-half of their support. Frontiero requested dependent status for her husband and was not allowed.
Issue: Does this federal law that gives different qualifications for male and female military spouses and their dependency unconstitutionally discriminate against women and violate the Fifth Amendment of the Due Process Clause?
Decision 8-1 The court stated that federal law is invalidated by the equal protection of the Fifth Amendment due process clause.
Reasoning: The court stated the statute clearly discriminates and treats men and women differently in similar situations. This also violated the Due Process Clause and equal protection requirements within the clause. Concurring opinions state that they do not hold gender discrimination as high or the same standard as race discrimination.
Title: Frontiero v. Richardson
Legal Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, sought a spousal dependency allowance for her husband, Joseph Frontiero. Under federal law, male service members automatically received such benefits for their wives, but female service members had to prove their husbands were financially dependent on their wives.
Issue: Did the federal law that imposed different requirements for spousal benefits based on gender violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Holding: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
Reasoning: the Court held that gender classifications is outdated. The law in questioned was unfairly by imposing additional requirements on female militants which were not placed on male militants, violating the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the Due Process Clause.
Importance: the striking down of the gender discriminatory law. Moving military equality further.
I. Fronteiro v Richardson
II. 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
III. According to federal law, male members of the military automatically received extra housing allowance and medical benefits if they had a wife. A woman in the military had to prove that she provided for more than half of her family’s living costs. Sharron Frontiero paid just less than half of her husband’s living expenses, so she was denied extra benefits. Her lawyers argued that this law violated the “due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment.
IV. Does this federal law violate due process?
V. Yes. The Court decided 8-1.
VI. Justice Brennan gave the opinion of the Court. The Court determined that the federal laws were so unreasonably discriminatory that they violated due process.
VII. Justice Stewart concurred, citing Reed v. Reed. Justice Powell, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun, concurred, but could not agree with Justice Brennan’s opinion (the majority opinion), that all classifications based on sex could be subject to judicial scrutiny.
VIII. Justice Rehnquist dissented, stating that the law does not discriminate based on sex, but rather on the nature of the relationship.
IX. Frontiero v Richardson split the Court over whether the ERA would make gender classifications suspect.
I. Frontiero v. Richardson
II. 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
III. Facts: Sharron Frontiero, an Air Force lieutenant, was denied a dependent’s allowance for her husband because federal law required female service-members to prove their husbands were dependent on them for over half of their support, while male servicemembers automatically received such benefits for their wives.
IV. Issues: Did the federal law violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
V. Decision and Action: Yes (8-1), in favor of Frontiero.
VI. Reasoning, per Brennan: The law imposed unequal treatment on male and female servicemembers, violating due process and equal protection principles. The plurality applied strict scrutiny to gender-based classifications, finding no justification for the discrimination. Justices Powell, Burger, and Blackmun concurred but relied on Reed v. Reed rather than applying strict scrutiny. Justice Stewart also concurred, citing unconstitutional discrimination. Justice Rehnquist dissented, supporting the lower court’s reasoning.
IX. Summary: The federal law was struck down as unconstitutional.
Frontiero v. Richardson 1973
Facts of the caseThere was a program by the Air Force that allowed spousal dependency fund for military members if they provided more than half income for the spouse remember the case of revolves around a husband trying to claim benefits for himself but was denied because he was not eligible because he was not dependent on his wife who was a service woman but this policy had usually blanketed wie even if they had not shown that they needed it
Question Did this violate the fifth amendments to process due law
Ruling 6-1 The court found this unconstitutional because there was no reason to put this blanket on women and put this put a strict standard on men also this was the first time that Ruth gitterberg argued between the court and ask for strict scrutiny which the polarity of the justices agreed with regarding sex equality based laws
I. Frontiero v. Richardson
II. 411 US 677 (1973)
III. Facts: Sharron Frontiero, an Air Force lieutenant, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband but was denied as husbands of female members were not accepted as such unless they were dependent for over one-half of their support.
IV. Issues: Did the Fed law violate the 5th’s Due Process?
V. Decision and Action: Yes (8-1), in favor of Frontiero.
VI. Reasoning, per Brennan: The statue commanded dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated within the military- thus violating Due Process and Equal protection. The plurality, applying strict standard of review to the sex-based classification as with race, found that the government’s interest could not justify this discrimination. Powell, Burger, and Blackmun concurred- though not holding sex discrimination on the same standard as race, but instead that the arbitrary legislative choice was forbidden as per Reed v. Reed. Stewart Concurred, that the statutes created invidious, unconstitutional discrimination. Rehnquist dissented; affirming the reasoning of the lower court.
IX. Summary: The Fed law was overruled.
Cases
Frontiero v. Richardson 1973
411 UA 677
Facts: Shapon Frontiero was an Air Force officer who happened to be a woman. They sought to get a dependents allowance for their husband. The statutes under law note that the spouses of female members are not dependent if they are over one-half of their support. Her application was denied for failing to satisfy the dependency standard. They sued, claiming it violated due process.
Issues: Does the law violate the 5th amendments due process
Decision: Yes
Reasoning: Per Breenan
The court takes the same approach as in the case of reed V reed. The court established that statutes that establish different standards based on classification are under scrutiny due to the equal protection clause. The government cannot prove that the statute that differential treatment saves money and thus it is subject to sttrict scrutiny. The court also mentions a shift in women’s occupations and abilities. Due to acts like Title VII and the Civil Rights Act, it is not allowed to discriminate based on sex. In this situation, the state not only fails under strict security but goes against the standard Congress has set and is not reasonable.
Voting Coalition:8-1
Summary: If states are discriminatory and have no concrete evidence of a compelling government’s interest in discrimination, it falls under strict scrutiny. The court followed the statutes. They began in Reed v Reed and used strict scrutiny to go against the statute.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, sought to claim her husband, Joseph Frontiero, as a dependent to receive increased housing and medical benefits. Under federal law, male service members could automatically claim their wives as dependents, but female service members had to prove that their husbands were financially dependent on them for at least half of their support. Frontiero challenged this law as unconstitutional gender discrimination.
Issue: Did the federal statute requiring female service members to prove their spouse’s dependency, while granting automatic dependency benefits to male service members, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause by discriminating based on gender.
Reasoning: led by Justice Brennan, argued that classifications based on sex should be subjected to strict scrutiny, the same level of judicial review applied to racial classifications.
The law’s differentiation based on gender served no compelling government interest and reinforced outdated stereotypes. While the government argued that the statute was designed for administrative convenience, the Court rejected this justification, emphasizing that gender-based discrimination should not be tolerated merely for efficiency.
Significance: Frontiero v. Richardson was a pivotal case in the development of gender equality jurisprudence.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: The U.S. military had a policy allowing servicemen to claim wives as dependents for obtaining benefits. In contrast, servicewomen were required to show that their husbands depended on them for over one-half of their support. Sharron Frontiero, a female lieutenant in the Air Force, requested a dependent status for her husband. The request was denied because she did not provide proof of dependence. Frontiero and her husband challenged the law, arguing that the statutes deprived servicewomen of due process.
Question: Did the federal law discriminate against women, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause?
Holding: Yes; 8-1 decision. The Court held that the policy’s different treatment against servicewomen violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection requirements that the clause implied.
Reasoning: The Court asserted that sex is an immutable characteristic determined by birth, such as race and national origin, which bears no relation to one’s ability to perform or contribute to society. The Court, therefore, concluded that classifications based on sex, similar to race, alienage, or national origin, are subject to strict scrutiny. Additionally, the Court found that the Government offered no concrete evidence and failed to demonstrate its view that such differential treatment saves the Government money. There is, however, substantial evidence that many wives of male members fail to qualify for benefits.
Title: Frontiero v. Richardson
Legal Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant, sought increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits for her husband as a “dependent”. Federal law automatically granted dependent status to wives of male service members, but husbands of female service members had to prove dependency for over half their support. Frontiero’s application was denied.
Issue: Did the federal statutes that imposed different dependency criteria for male and female military members violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating against women?
Holding: Yes, the statutes unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of sex.
Reasoning: The Court ruled that the statutes’ differential treatment of men and women violated the Due Process Clause and equal protection. Justice Brennan’s plurality opinion applied strict scrutiny to sex-based classifications, likening them to those based on race, alienage, and national origin. The government’s interest in administrative convenience was deemed insufficient to justify the discrimination. However, there was no consensus on the standard of review, with some justices arguing that a heightened standard was unnecessary to reach the decision.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: A married woman, Sharon Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force sought increased benefits for her husband as a “dependent” under a military policy that only allowed wives to be defendants and that spouses of female members are not dependents unless they are in fact, dependent for over one-half of their support. When her application was denied for not satisfying the dependency standard, Frontiero and her husband sued, claiming the statutes deprived servicewomen of due process under the 14th Amendment.
Issue: Was it constitutional for the military statute to only allow women to be dependent on men who serve under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: No, 8-1.
Reasoning: Per Brennan. Sex-based discriminations are unconstitutional. The Court found the statute’s sex-based discrimination to be unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny standard. The Court rejected the Air Force’s logistical burden corners and argued that with sex-based discrimination, the standards are higher. This case set a precedent for heightened scrutiny of laws that discriminate based on gender/sex, which is not always used.
NAME & LEGAL CITATION
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 US 677 (1973)
FACTS
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. The federal law is that wives of military members automatically became dependents; but husbands of female members of the military were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over half of their support. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was turned down.
QUESTION
Was the federal law requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal unconstitutional for the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
HOLDING
In an 8-1 ruling, the Court ruled that the federal law violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
REASONING
The Court reasoned that the statute in question clearly commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated” which violated the Due Process Clause. The plurality opinion written by Justice Breen found that the government’s interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices.
Title: Frontiero v. Richardson
Legal Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law automatically granted dependent status to military wives, but husbands of female service members were only considered dependents if they relied on their wives for over half of their support. Her request was denied.
Issue: Did a federal law with different spousal dependency criteria for male and female military members violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating against women?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: The Court ruled that the statute’s different treatment of men and women violated the Due Process Clause and equal protection. However, there was no consensus on the standard of review. Justice Brennan’s plurality opinion applied strict scrutiny, likening sex-based classification to racial classification, and found the government’s interest in administrative convenience insufficient to justify discrimination.
Frontiero v. Richardson 1973
Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Decided: May 14, 1973
Facts: Sharon Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought to claim her husband, Joseph Frontiero, as a dependent to receive increased housing and medical benefits. At the time, military policy allowed male members to automatically claim their wives as dependents, whereas female members had to prove their husbands were dependent on them for over half of their support. Frontiero’s request was denied because she could not prove her husband’s dependency, leading her to challenge this policy as discriminatory.
Issue: Does the federal statute that requires different qualifications based on gender for determining spousal dependency for military benefits violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Holding: Yes, the statute’s differential treatment based on gender violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the statute’s gender-based discrimination was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Brennan, applied a strict scrutiny standard, arguing that classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny. The Court noted that the policy perpetuated traditional gender stereotypes and imposed an unfair burden on female service members. The plurality opinion emphasized that gender-based discrimination, much like racial discrimination, is an arbitrary way to determine eligibility for benefits and is therefore unconstitutional.
Significance: Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark case in the development of gender equality jurisprudence in the United States. It set a precedent for heightened scrutiny of laws that discriminate based on gender, paving the way for future gender discrimination cases. The case is significant for recognizing that gender-based distinctions warrant a more rigorous examination under the Constitution, contributing to the evolving understanding of equal protection principles.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts:
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband, Joseph Frontiero. Under federal law, male service members automatically received benefits for their wives, but female service members had to prove their husbands were financially dependent on them for at least half of their support. When the Air Force denied Joseph Frontiero benefits, the couple challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Issue:
Did the federal law requiring female service members to prove their spouses’ financial dependence, while granting benefits automatically to male service members’ wives, violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating based on gender?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated on the basis of sex, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning:
A plurality of the Court (four justices) determined that classifications based on sex should be subject to strict scrutiny, the same high standard applied to racial classifications. They argued that gender-based discrimination, like racial discrimination, is inherently suspect and requires a compelling government justification. The plurality found that the government’s argument of administrative convenience did not justify the discriminatory policy.
Significance:
The Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, marking a significant step toward gender equality under U.S. law.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 US 677 (1973)
Facts: A federal policy of the U.S. military allowed servicemen to claim wives as dependents for the purposes of obtaining benefits, but servicewomen had a stricter standard to meet. Wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they could show that they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their financial support. Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for medical benefits and housing benefits for her husband but was denied due to failure to meet the policy’s requirements. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Defense, and the Air Force argued that evaluating the dependent status of every wife as well as every husband would pose a substantial logistical burden.
Legal Question: Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Decision: Yes
Reasoning of Court: per Brennan. The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause implied. The equal protection requirements of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause invalidate federal laws that impose requirements on women but not on similarly situated men. The Court rejected the Air Force’s argument that evaluating both wives’ and husbands’ dependent status would pose a substantial logistical burden. Presenting empirical evidence that wives were more likely to be dependents than husbands was not enough to justify an automatic presumption. The plurality, applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification as it would to racial classification, found that the government’s interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices. However, the plurality’s attempt to use strict scrutiny for gender-based classifications was later rejected in favor of intermediate scrutiny.
Voting Coalitions: (8 to 1). For the majority, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell. Dissenting, Rehnquist.
This case established a precedent where the Court would view limitations having to do with gender with greater scrutiny, potentially helping in the elimination of gender discrimination, and in some instances potentially hindering it.
Title: Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband, Joseph Frontiero. Under existing law, male service members automatically received dependent benefits for their spouses, while female service members had to prove that their husbands were dependent on them for more than half of their support. Sharron Frontiero challenged this gender-based distinction, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Question: Did the gender-based distinction in the federal statute regarding dependent benefits for spouses of military personnel violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the gender-based distinction in the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court established that classifications based on gender are subject to heightened scrutiny, and the government must show an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for such classifications.
Significance: Frontiero v. Richardson was a significant case in advancing gender equality under the law. The Court’s decision established that gender-based classifications would be subject to heightened scrutiny, marking a departure from previous lower standards of review. This decision paved the way for greater legal protections against gender discrimination in various areas of law and policy.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Sharon Frontiero, a U.S lieutenant for the Air Force sought to obtain a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law indicated that wives of members of the military automatically became dependents, but husbands of female members of the military, were not.
Unless the husbands were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support.
Fronteiro’s request for her husband’s dependent status was declined.
Court struck down the statute but couldn’t come to a consensus on the reasoning. Knew gender discrimination existed but didn’t know what to do about it.
Plurality Opinion; Couldn’t agree on which standard of review to use.
—-Justice Brennan attempted to apply a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, finding the government’s objective could not justify discriminatory practices.
—–Justice Powell, Burger, and Blackmun did not want to hold sex discrimination to the same standard as race, so they reasoned that those statutes differentiating between the sexes alone is arbitrary and forbidden by the Constitution.
Frontera wanted to have her husband as a dependent as she was part of the military. Federal law says that the wives of members of the military can become dependents automatically and did not have to really show anything for it but for husbands of female military they did have to go through a process. Husbands cannot be dependent unless their spouse made more than half of the household income. She requested that her husband to become a defendant and her status was rejected with the idea that maybe as a woman she was not able to give her husband dependency. The question is did the federal law requiring different requirements for male and female spouses violate a due process clause? The court ruled that it did violate the 5th Amendment due process clause and benefits due to the basis of sex cannot be a discrimination value. Either all spouses have to do paperwork or no spouses have to do space paperwork.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. Her request for dependent status for her husband was turned down.
Question: Was the federal law requiring different qualifications for male and female military spousal dependency unconstitutional?
Decision and Action: 8–1. decision for frontiero
I. Title and Citation: Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
II. Facts: Sharron Frontiero, former Lieutenantof the U.S. Air Force, asserted that servicemen could claim their wives as dependents and receive higher housing allowance and medical benefits. But military wives could only claim their spouses as dependents if they proved that their spouses relied on them for more than half of their income.
III. Legal Question(s): Does this law violate the due process clause of the 5th amendment?
IV. Holding: Yes
V. Reasoning: Benefits provided to family members by the US military cannot be allocated differently based on a person’s gender.
VI. Opinions:
Concurring Opinion: Justice Powell
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Rehnquist
VII. Summary: Considering the complainant received military benefits, the court determined that sex discrimination was unlawful.
Legal Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Statement of Facts:
•Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, requested a dependent status for her husband but was denied. Under federal law, male military members were automatically given extra housing allowance and medical benefits, if they had a wife. The husbands of female military members were not classified as dependents unless they depended on their wives for over ½ of support
Statement of Issues:
•Did the federal law which required differential qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against servicewomen, and thus violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Decision:
•Yes, the Court ruled in favor of Frontiero holding that the statute in question clearly commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause implied
Reasoning:
•The plurality opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification as it would to racial classification, found that the government’s interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices.
Concurring Opinions:
•A concurring opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell and joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice Harry A. Blackmun would not go so far as to hold sex discrimination to the same standard as race, choosing instead to argue that statutes drawing lines between the sexes alone necessarily involved the “very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution,” an approach employed in the Court’s prior decision in Reed v. Reed. Justice Potter Stewart concurred separately that the statutes created invidious discrimination in violation of the Constitution
Dissenting Opinions:
•Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented affirming the reasoning of the lower court opinion
Voting Coalition
•8-1 in favor of Frontiero
Significance:
•This case was important because it established a more equal precedent for men and women in the workforce, or specifically the military.
Unclear which test was used
Ruth Ginsburg was granted writ of certioriry
She was lieutenant in US Air Force, requested dependent allowance for her husband
Federal law provided that to wives of members
Husband of wives who are in military are not covered
Frontiero request for dependent status for her husband was turned down
Q: Did federal law requiring different qualification violate 5th Due Process?
Rulling: Yes law violated Due Process and struck down statue, but used no test
411 US 677 (1973)
Rule of Law: Under the Due Process Clause, governmental classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny
Facts: Congress passed a law granting members of the armed services with dependents an increased housing allowance and medical and dental benefits for their dependents. Under the law, a serviceman was permitted to claim his wife as a dependent, regardless of whether the wife was dependent. In contrast, a servicewoman was only permitted to claim her husband as a dependent upon a showing that her husband was dependent on the servicewoman for more than half of his support. Sharron Frontiero, a United States Air Force member, tried to claim her husband as a dependent. Frontiero’s application was denied because she did not make the required showing of dependence. Frontiero alleged that the law violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by imposing additional procedural burdens on female service members and extending dependency benefits to non-dependent spouses of male service members. Frontiero brought suit in federal district court against the Secretary of Defense, Richardson, and others. Most of the three-judge district court upheld the law, concluding that Congress might have believed the policy was economical and efficient because husbands are typically breadwinners, and wives are typically dependent.
Issue: Under the Due Process Clause, are governmental classifications based on sex inherently suspect and subject to strict judicial scrutiny?
Holding: (Delivered by Justice Brennan) Yes. Women, like racial minorities, have faced a long history of discrimination. As a result of this discrimination, historically, women could not vote, serve on juries, bring suit in their names, own property, or sometimes serve as legal guardians of their children. Although the plight of women has improved over time, women are still subject to discrimination in higher education institutions, the job market, and the political arena. Sex is “an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth,” and discrimination on this basis has no relationship to an individual’s capabilities. Yes, Congress has begun to ban sex-based discrimination in various legislation. Accordingly, governmental classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and warrant strict judicial scrutiny, just like classifications based on race, alienage, and national origin.
fortiero v richardson (1973)
married servicewoman who, if she were a man, would be eligible for additional military benefits (housing, medical, etc.)
fed law only granted these benefits to men married (to woman, not vice versa)
does this law violate the due process clause of the 5th amd?
(apparently based on the parties federal status)
yes. overburdened married service woman based on their sex alone
strict scrutiny – 4 justices
meer rationality – 3 justices
The court in this case ruled that gender was a suspect classification (to some degree) under the standard of equal protection. However, only a plurality of justices were willing to put this under the same strict scrutiny as race or national origin.
not equal protection, due process clause of the 5th amendment
Frontiero v Richardson
411 US 677 (1973)
Facts: Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero (air force) wanted a dependent allowance for her husband. According to federal law, wives of members of the military automatically became dependents, however this was not the case for husbands of female military members. Husbands could not be dependents unless they depended on their spouses for over half of their support. Her request for her husband to have a dependent status was rejected.
Question: Did the federal law requiring different criteria for male and female spousal dependency violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment?
Opinion: 8-1, yes
Reasoning: benefits given out by US military to family members cannot be given out differently on the basis of sex
Title and Citation:
Frontiero v Richardson
411 US 677 1973
Facts:
Sharon Fronteiro a U.S lieutenant for the Air Force sought to obtain a depedent’s allowance for her husband.
Federal law indicated that wives of members of the military automatically became dependents, but husbands of female members of the military, were not.
Unless the husbands were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support.
Fronteiro’s request for her husband’s dependent status was declined.
Legal Questions:
Did the federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women, violating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause? Yes
Holding:
Yes, in an 8-1 decision, the Court concluded that federal law clearly applied differential treatment for men and women in similar situations, thus violating the due process and equal protection that the clause implied under the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning:
The Court could not agree on the standard of review to use.
Justice Brennan attempted to apply a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, would find the government’s objective could not justify discriminatory practices.
Justice Powell, Burger, and Blackmun did not want to hold sex discrimination to the same standard as race, so they reasoned that those statutes differentiating between the sexes alone is arbitrary and forbidden by the Constitution.
Dissenting Opinions:
Justice Rehnquist dissented by affirming the lower court’s opinion.
I. Frontiero V. Richardson
II. Legal Citation
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
III. Statement Of Facts
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the Air Force, wanted her husband to receive dependent benefits. Her request was declined because federal law does not allow for a husband to be a dependent, even though wives of military men are automatically dependents.
IV. Issue
Did the federal law violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by unconstitutionally discriminating against women?
V. Holding
Yes. The distinction based on sex was unconstitutional.
I. Case name: Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
II. Facts: The plaintiff, Sharron Frontiero, was a Lieutenant in the United States Air Force. According to existing U.S. law at the time, servicemen could claim their wives as dependents and receive an increased housing allowance and medical benefits. However, servicewomen could only claim their husbands as dependents if they could prove that their husbands were dependent on them for over half of their income.
III. Issues: Does a federal statute, which provides different treatment for male and female members of the uniform services by granting automatic dependency status to wives of male members for purposes of obtaining increased housing allowances and medical and dental benefits, but not to husbands of female members, unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
IV. Holding: Yes. The court decided in favor of Frontiero with an 8-1 majority. It ruled that the distinction made based on sex was unconstitutional.
V.Impact: This case is a cornerstone in the recognition and validation of women’s equality rights, as it was one of the first instances where the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to sex discrimination, treating it similarly to racial discrimination.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts:
Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero, an Air Force officer, sought dependency status for her husband. Under federal law, wives of military members were automatically granted dependency status, but the same privilege was not extended to husbands. Consequently, Frontiero’s request was denied based on this discrepancy.
Issue:
Was the federal law, which automatically granted dependency status to wives of military members but not to husbands, unconstitutional for discriminating against women in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause?
Holding:
In an 8-1 decision, the court held that the federal law did indeed discriminate against women under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
II. Facts:
Sharron Frontiero, a female lieutenant in the Air Force sought to claim her husband as a dependent to receive benefits. Under federal statutes, male service members could claim their wives as dependents automatically. However, a servicewoman may not claim her husband as a dependent unless he is dependent upon her for over one-half of his support. Frontiero’s application was denied because she could not prove her husband’s dependency. Frontiero claimed that the statutes discriminated based on sex in violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
III. Issues:
1. Do statutes that provide different standards for male and female servicemembers to claim spousal benefits violate equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
IV. Holding:
Yes.
V. Reasoning:
Classifications based on sex are inherently suspect like those based on race or national origin, and must be subjected to close judicial scrutiny. The government failed to demonstrate that the differential treatment of male and female uniformed service members served any purpose other than administrative efficiency. Administrative convenience is insufficient under strict scrutiny equal protection analysis to justify different treatment of similarly situated individuals based solely on an immutable characteristic like sex.
VI. Judgment:
Reversed. Statutes are unconstitutional.
hello hello
I. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
II. Facts:
Sharron Frontiero, a female lieutenant in the Air Force sought to claim her husband as a dependent to receive benefits. Under federal statutes, male service members could claim their wives as dependents automatically. However, a servicewoman may not claim her husband as a dependent unless he is dependent upon her for over one-half of his support. Frontiero’s application was denied because she could not prove her husband’s dependency. Frontiero claimed that the statutes discriminated based on sex in violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
III. Issues:
1. Do statutes that provide different standards for male and female servicemembers to claim spousal benefits violate equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
IV. Holding:
Yes.
V. Reasoning:
Classifications based on sex are inherently suspect like those based on race or national origin, and must be subjected to close judicial scrutiny. The government failed to demonstrate that the differential treatment of male and female uniformed service members served any purpose other than administrative efficiency. Administrative convenience is insufficient under strict scrutiny equal protection analysis to justify different treatment of similarly situated individuals based solely on an immutable characteristic like sex.
VI. Judgment:
Reversed. Statutes are unconstitutional.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts:
– Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the Air Force, requested dependent benefits for her husband but was denied.
– Male service members automatically received dependent benefits for their wives but it did not work the other way around.
– She sued under the 5th Amendment’s Due Process clause.
Question:
– Did the federal law not allowing wives to claim dependent benefits for their husbands violate the 5th Amendment’s Due Process clause?
Holding:
– Yes that law did violate the 5th Amendment’s Due Process clause.
– Ruled in favor of Frontiero
– 8-1
Opinion:
– One dissented
– Four concurred
– Four wanted to follow strict scrutiny where gender discrimination in the military is prohibited.
Title: Frontiero V. Richardson 1973
Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts: A federal statute established dependent spouses of service members to receive health care and other financial benefits. Specifically, service men could claim their wives as dependents which automatically qualifies them to receive financial benefits even if in truth, the wifes were not actually financially dependent on their husbands. On the other hand, service women could only claim their husbands as dependents, only upon showing that they provided more than half of their husbands support. Lieutenant Sharon Frontiero applied for financial benefits for her husband- the government denied Fronterios’s request. The government supported their decision because Fronterio couldn’t prove her husband depended on her for more than ½ of his support. Fronterion filed suit to the District Court- court believed the statue was constitutional because men are stereotypically breadwinners. Fronerio appealed to the SCOTUS.
Legal Question: Did the Federal statutes violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment by discrimination on the basis of sex?
Holding: Yes 8-1
Reasoning: The court found that the statute was unconstitutional and did violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment by discrimination on the basis of sex. Justice Powell used Reed v Reed as precedent for ruling the statute as sex discrimination. Justice Brennan rejected the federal statute’s sex-based classifications for husbands receiving financial benefits on account of their service wife.
The discrimination within this case seems very apparent. Why is it that a woman married to a man in the military is automatically considered a dependent however in situations such as the Frontieros, a man could only be considered a dependent if he “truly” was dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. To me, this implies that whoever wrote the law views women relying upon their husbands as the “natural way of things.” So natural that it in fact does not require any proof or numerical analysis of just how much support they are receiving because in the end they are married to a man, and as a married woman they are viewed as one with their husband (coveture.) However, clearly to the lawmakers, it was difficult to imagine that a man could ever be dependent on a woman therefore they raised the bar for what constitutes as being “dependent” on your wife. This creates a burden on the women in certain scenarios, such as the Frontieros, to prove that their husband is in fact dependent on the wife in times of financial need whereas if they were a man they would not need to provide any proof to determine just how dependent their wife is.
Frontiero V. Richardson
Legal Citation
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
III. Statement Of Facts
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the Air Force, wanted to gain dependency status for her husband; however, federal law allows wives of military members to become dependents automatically, but the same was not the case for the husbands, hence, why she was declined.
IV. Issue
Did the federal law in place unconstitutionally discriminate against women, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment due process clause?
V. Holding
The court decided 8-1 that, yes, the federal law was discriminating against women under the due process clause.
In this case, Sharron Frontiero, a married member of the U.S. Air Force wanted to claim her husband as a dependent, which would give many benefits. However, the statues regarding this issue stated that wives of members were dependents automatically. However, husbands had to rely on their wives for over 1/2 of their support., which is why Frontiero’s request was denied. This case made it to the Supreme Court, and the issue was whether or not the different qualifications between men and women were a violation of the 5th amendment’s due process clause. The Court, in an 8-1 ruling said yes, because there was a dissimilar treatment despite being similarly situated. Plurality opinion by Justice Brennan used a strict scrutiny standard, equating the class of sex and race together. In a concurring opinion, there was disagreement as to whether a strict scrutiny test should be applied, and instead decided to use precedent of Reed v. Reed to establish the ruling. Stewart wrote his own concurring opinion whilst Rehnquist dissented.
I. Name or Title of Case: Frontiero v. Richardson
II. Legal Citation: 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
III. Statement of Facts: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, requested a dependent status for her husband but was denied. Under federal law, male military members were automatically given an extra housing allowance, and medical benefits, if they had a wife. The husbands of female military members were not classified as dependents unless they depended on their wives for over one-half of their support.
IV. Statement of Issues: Did the federal law which required differential qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against servicewomen, and thus violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
V. Holding: Yes. 8-1
VI. Reasoning: Yes, the Court held that the federal law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection requirements that the Clause implied. Although eight Justices agreed on the unconstitutionality of the federal law, the Court could not agree upon which standard of review to view the sex-based classification. Justice Brennan gave the plurality opinion which applied a strict standard of review, and stated that a government’s interests in administrative conveniences could not justify discriminatory practices.
VII. Concurring opinion: Justices. Powell, Burger, and Blackmun gave a concurring opinion, which did not hold sex discrimination to the same strict standard of review as race-based classifications, and instead stated that “statutes drawing lines between the sexes alone necessarily involved the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution”.
VIII. Dissenting opinion: Yes. Justice Rehnquist.
IX. Voting coalition: 8-1
X. Summary: Frontiero v. Richardson shows the Courts deferring opinions on whether or not a strict scrutiny standard of review should apply to sex-based classifications. The Court does not have a concurring answer on whether sex-based classifications are suspect classifications.
Frontiero v. Richardson
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts of the Case: A lieutenant in the United States Air Force, Sharron Frontiero, was seeking an allowance for dependents for her husband. Per federal law, military members’ wives were considered dependents, but female members’ husbands were not considered unless they depended on the wife for more than half of their support. Therefore, Frontiero’s request was denied. She and her husband filed suit for depriving servicewomen of due process.
Legal Question: Was the federal law in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause for discriminating against women for having different member qualifications?
Holding: 8-1 in favor of Frontiero
Court’s Opinion: The court agreed the law did not treat men and women similarly thus violating the Due Process Clause.
1.Name or Title of Case:
Frontiero v. Richardson
2. Legal Citation:
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
3. Facts of the case:
a married women ( Sharron Frontiero) , an Air Force officer, sought increased benefits (medical and dental) for her husband as a “dependent’s” allowance.
Alabama statute:
Procedural matter: a female member required to demonstrate her spouse’s dependency. While no such burden was imposed upon male members
Substantive matter: a male member who did not provide more than one half of his wife support received benefits, while similarly situated female member was denied such benefits
Frontiero’s request was denied because he failed to demonstrate that her husband was dependent on her for more than one-half of his support required by Alabama statute.
4. Legal question:
Does the statutory difference in treatment of male and female military personnel for purposes of determining “dependent” benefits a violation of the due process clause of the 5th amendment?
5. Decision and action:
court in favor of Frontiero. Reversed the appeal that the difference of treatment on the basis of sex under the statutes is unconstitutional discrimination against servicewomen.
6. Opinion of the court:
Justice Brennan stated that
(1)statutory classifications based upon sex were inherently suspect and thus must be subjected to close judicial scrutiny
(2) under judicial scrutiny, the challenged statues were unconstitutional as discrimination against servicewomen in violation of the due process clause of the 5th amendment
Sole purpose for statutory discrimination being mere administrative convenience
7. Voting Coalition:
In favor of Frontiero by a vote of 8 to 1
8. Summary:
The court deemed discrimination on the basis of sex as unconstitutional based on receiving military benefits.
I. Name or Title of Case:
Frontiero v. Richardson
II. Legal Citation:
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
III. Statement of Facts:
Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero of the US Air Force applied for her husband’s dependent’s allowance. According to federal law, spouses of service members were automatically designated as dependents; however, spouses of female service members were not recognized as dependents unless they were reliant on their spouses for more than half of their income. Frontiero’s husband’s plea to be considered a dependent was denied.
IV. Statement of Issues:
Whether or not the law that required different military qualifications for male and female spousal dependency, is in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
V. Decision and Action:
The Court ruled in favor of Frontiero, holding that the law that required different military qualifications for male and female spousal dependency, is in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
VI. Reasoning of the Court:
The Court, delivered by Justice Brennan Jr., provided that using the same stringent standards of evaluation for racial and sex-based classification, it was determined that discriminatory practices could not be justified by the government’s need for administrative convenience.
VII. Concurring Opinions:
Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Steward also filed a dissenting opinion.
VIII. Dissenting Opinions:
Justice Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion,
IX. Voting Coalition:
The Court ruled in favor of Frontiero with a vote of 8 to 1.
X. Summary:
This case was important because it established a more equal precedent for men and women in the workforce, or specifically the military.
I have been a reader for years, as well as your good quality has not wavered.
You’ve got a expertise for explaining matters in a method that is uncomplicated to know. I am wanting ahead to examining extra from you.
I value how you provided actionable methods for your visitors to just take. It is exceptional to find out that standard of practical guidance.
Your composing is so participating that I could not halt reading. There is a true talent for storytelling.
Clove Dental, 284/1, First Floor, Whitefield Main Rd, above Dominos, Whitefield, Vinayaka Layout, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560066 Phone: 082879 28325 clovedental.in
Your perseverance to sharing important information is actually admirable.
Ishas Physiotherapy and Spine Care Clinic, Kotak Mahindra Bank Building, No: 176/42, 22nd Cross Rd, opposite of Wildcraft and Bajaj Finance, Jayanagar 3rd Block East, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560011, India Phone: 099167 61666 http://www.physiyo.in/
Your enthusiasm for Mastering is infectious. I am proud for being a component of your Group.
In Fronterio V. Richardson, we see the opposite of what we have seen with the cases so far. This is an instance of what is technically discrimination against men but simultaneously discriminates against women given that they assume we can be breadwinners/ the main income source. It starts with Sharron Frontiero, who was a lieutenant in the US air force and sought to get a dependent allowance for her husband. The federal law made it so the wives of military members would be considered dependent automatically, but males were not unless they depended on their wives for over one-half of their support. In this case, the court found that it did indeed violate the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment.
Why discriminated men? Why not give them the rights and benefits that correspond to them as spouses? Or only the woman has the right to benefit from her husband? should both have equal rigths or no?
When we were talking about this in class, mainly everyone agreed this was discriminatory towards men, but then the point of it also being discriminatory towards women was also brought up. I hadn’t even thought to look at it from that perspective, however now I see this case was about discrimination against both. This statute implies that women cannot be providers and men cannot be dependents. Likewise, the effort women had to go through to prove dependency whereas men had no such obstacle was entirely unfair.
https://www.al.com/news/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-an-alabama-air-force-officer-opened-doors-for-women-everywhere-in-1973.html
A female lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, “ sought a dependent’s allowance of her spouse. “ Federal law says “ that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents, however were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. “ The request was rejected. Is this a violation of the 5th amendment, due to having different requirements for male and female dependency?
I need and answer to the question you ask at the end?
Sharron Frontiero was a Lieutenant in the United States Airforce, wanted a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Under the federal law the wives of military members were automatically dependents. The husbands of military women were not accepted as dependents unless they depended for over half of their wives support. This meant that Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was turned down.
It was concluded that the federal law which required different qualifications for men and women military spousal dependency unconstitutionally discriminated against women. This violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Sharron Frontiero, a female military personnel, filed an action stating that there was a difference in treatment of female and male military personnel in terms of deciding dependent benefits.
– Frontiero and her husband pressed the claim under the due process clause of the 5th amendment instead of the 14th amendment. from what I understand the intent behind this was that the 5th amendment applies to the federal government while the 14th applies to the state. Because their complaint involved a federal statute, whatever decision was made in relation to the 5th amendment would pertain to the due process clause of the 14th and “thereby limit all state governments”
– The court ruled in favor of Frontiero, and stated that it commanded dissimilar treatment for men and women in similar situations
In this case, the U.S. Air Force required husbands of female members to prove they were dependent on their wives for over half of their income to be considered dependents. In contrast, wives of male members were not subjected to the same requirements and were automatically considered dependents. The Supreme Court determined that this represented a difference in the treatment of men and women similarly situated and violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. I think the spouses of both, male and female members, deserve the same protection and benefits because they have to adapt to the changes in lifestyle that being on active duty entails, such as moving or taking care of their family while the other spouse is away.
From what I understand of this case, the assumption was that because she was in the military and her husband was a man, there was no need to give as many military benefits because of the fact her dependent was a man. I believe this comes from the idea that women are dependent of men. Before it would be where the man was off at war and his wife would be his dependent meaning she cannot provide for herself and NEEDS him to support herself. However, now that the roles are switched, the assumption is although he is her dependent now since she is in the military, he is still a man and probably has a job and doesn’t need that money compared to if the roles were reversed. This essentially seems like kind of an attack on both men and women because of the assumption that women CANNOT provide and men CANNOT be dependent.
I disagree. We are treading water (in class) day-after-day. Do you have evidence to support that the “roles or switched.” We have to be careful making these broad sweeping statements…
In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), the Court found the law requiring Frontiero to provide proof of her husband’s income as unconstitutional because members of the opposite gender automatically receive those benefits. This law imposed multiple tests to make it harder for the wife to extend her benefits to her husband. It also speaks on how women were seen as being reliant on men for money and the other way around was seen as abnormal and unacceptable.
The equal protection clause made it such that the military denying benefits to a dependent based on gender (male) be unconstitutional. Although we talk allot in this class on women being oppressed or discriminated, I think in many regards women have benefited more than men from society.
5th*
We should discuss this. Of course it depends on the time period and what you mean by “benefited.” I touch on this a little in 356 and much more in 358, but most studies show that “white women” have been advantaged the most by affirmative action policies. Then again, are you saying the “benefit” is gain an advantage (more than men) or benefited to gain as much as or equal to men?
The question was if a federal law requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency unconstitutionally discriminates against women, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court ruled Yes. The Court held that the statute in question commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that the clause implied. A majority could not agree on the standard of review, however. The plurality opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., applying a strict standard of thought to the sex-based classification as it would to racial classification, found that the government’s interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices.
Test question? did the majority (as opposed to a plurality) apply strict scrutiny? T/F
First, I really enjoyed the video. Second, regardless of the courts ruling, women roles in marriage and society where questioned which is important. I just need to do more studying and understanding on why the 5th amendment was used but not the 14th amendment.
“I just need to do more studying and understanding on why the 5th amendment was used but not the 14th amendment.” I can explain this quickly, ask me in class
The Frontiero v. Richardson case showcased deeply rooted gender discrimination. It was said that federal law stated that women were considered to be dependents but that would not necessarily apply to males. I can see why it would make sense because the requirements of a military service worker are extensive and obligate the family to follow the lead, especially if financially dependent.
Ultimately, Frontiero v. Richardson decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex. Frontiero is an important decision in several respects, including the fact that it informed the military establishment that in terms of pay, allowances and general treatment, women must be considered on an equal plane as men. However, the Court did not issue a broad decision requiring the military to prove in the courts its reasons for excluding women from combat positions.
What’s interesting to me in Frontiero is that, in order for a man to be considered a dependent, the family had to prove that the man was responsible for less than half of the family’s income. However, married women were automatically considered to be the dependents of any man in the military. This seems important because it represents a specific quantifiable example of inequity. Women are assumed to be responsible for less than half of a family’s income, men are assumed to be responsible for more than half, and if they are responsible for less than that amount, they must prove it.
many of your classmates did not mention this… does it matter.
I would say it does because it implies that women will always be under the protection and control of men.
Sharron Frontiero was a lieutenant in the U.S Air Force that sought out the extra medical and housing benefits for having a spouse. However, to receive the benefits only women had to prove that she was paying for more than one-half of their husband’s living costs. Although, men received these benefits automatically. While her husband was using his GI bill for school, he received $205 and his living costs were $354. Therefore, Sharron could not claim to be paying for more than one-half of his costs. In a 8 to 1 decision, the Court decided that the federal law violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In a plurality rather than the majority, Justices argued that there is no purpose to the differential treatment in this law. These justices argued due to sex being out of a person’s control it should be subject to strict scrutiny. In a concurring opinion, Justice Powell, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Burger disagreed with the opinion that sex should be subject to close judicial scrutiny and stated that sex should not be classified as a suspect classification.
why the 5th and not the 14th?
This was a federal law and the Due Process clause in the Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states.
why only to the states?
Sharon Frontiero sought a military allowance for her husband, but at the time, these benefits distributed that differently based on gender. While wives of military personnel were automatically seen as dependents, husbands were not, save for certain circumstances in which they were dependent on their female spouse. The court held that this unequal treatment violated the Due Process and equal protection requirements of that clause. However, the Justices did not agree on the standard of review of this case. Justice Rehnquist was the only one who dissented; agreeing with the lower court opinion.
The main premise of this case is to determine whether a federal law that required different requirements for men and women regarding military spousal dependency was unconstitutional by violating the Fifth Amendment with the Due Process Clause. Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero, of the US Air Force, wanted a dependence allowance for her husband as federal law permitted the wives of military personnel to automatically become dependents. Lt. Frontiero requested that her husband be allowed to be placed under her dependency status. The military claimed that this law only worked one way (applying to wives of military personnel and not to husbands of military personnel). The Supreme Court decided to listen to this case and came back in an 8-1 decision in favor of Lt. Frontiero. The 8-1 decision did rule that the different criteria for men and women violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection. With this in mind, only a plurality of the justices could agree that sex based discrimination and race based discrimination were together a strict standard that should have been applied. Three justices concurred, drawing differences between sex based and race based discrimination. Justice Rehnquist was the only justice to dissent. In his dissent, he upheld the ruling of the lower court, which ruled against Lt. Frontiero. Concluding, the federal law did violate the Constitution and was hence ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
As Hiba states, this case uses the 5th amendment rather than the 14th amendment’s due process clause so as to work around the limitation of “state.” It seems they did so because their complaint is against a federal statute. Also, any ruling made based on the 5th amendment’s due process clause would apply to all the state governments that fall under the 14th amendment’s due process clause.
right: Cruikshank is not a state, neither is the Fed gov
Frontiero v. Richardson was an interesting case: while Frontiero did win in the end, it wasn’t the resounding victory she – and the feminist movement – was hoping for. It was quite clever to use the 14th Amendment but was also the more logical argument: as established in this course, and the arguments, the 14th Amendment is for states violating due process and the 5th is for the national government; as this was a matter for the US Air Force, the federal argument was the better one.
Now, as for the decision, they agreed to agree while disagreeing. By a vote of 8-1 in favor of Frontiero, she got her equal pay because the difference between sexes for the sake of convenience was arbitrary. Problem: not everyone agreed with why this was the case. The plural – but not actual – majority saw this as a case of strict scrutiny, but because they didn’t have a 5-4 majority, each Justice’s opinion was merely an opinion. No ground was gained nor lost for women here due to the technicalities of the majority. At least Frontiero gets her dues though.
“No ground was gained nor lost for women” I will disagree here
The military claimed that because the military is overwhelmingly men, it would have been an administrative burden to prove that they provide more than half of their wife’s income. The Court recognized “the State’s interest in achieving administrative efficiency ‘is not without some legitimacy,’” but, now affirming sex as a suspect category, the Court had to go beyond rational basis to determine the constitutionality of the military policy. This case marks a shift in the Court where it began to recognize the importance of employing strict scrutiny where it maybe should have before in regards to sex. “Any statutory scheme which draws a sharp line between the sexes, solely for the purpose of achieving administrative convenience, necessarily commands ‘dissimilar treatment for men and women who are . . . similarly situated,’ and therefore involves the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the [Constitution]. . . .’” The military was unable to provide sufficient evidence that this measure genuinely saved administrative costs, their chosen means were merely rationally related as opposed to substantially related to their end, neither was it argued that the military policy is necessarily necessary.
I disagree, the Court did NOT apply strict scrutiny to sex in this case.
Hi Noah,
In your opinion how did the court apply strict scrutiny in this case in particular and what does it recognize within the employer’s policies regarding sex? I wonder how this can connect to the fact that as a wife she was unable to claim him as a dependent despite her being an Air Force Officer.
In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, rather than using the Fourteenth amendment’s Due Process Clause to claim their spousal medical and housing support from military service, Sharron Fronteiro (and her dependent husband) used the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid the limitations of “No state shall.”
EXCELLENT: used the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid the limitations of “No state shall.” But why, is it because Congress is not a State
Women are finally making change in the roles they are forced to have. Women are capable of being the breadwinners of the house this case proves that theres discrimination occurring with men; they are able to be a woman’s dependent. Discrimination should not be occurring anywhere.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Act in question required “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” therefore breaching the Due Process Clause and the implicit equal protection standards. However, a majority of the participants couldn’t agree on a review standard. The government’s interest in administrative convenience could not support discriminatory practices, according to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.’s plurality judgment, which applied the same stringent standard of review to sex-based classification as it did to racial classification.
In this case, the spouses are the ones who are affected by Frontiero’s request since they are unable to rely on their wives. In conclusion, this motion is seeking something good for the individual, but it also meant giving women a higher position, which contradicted the court’s long-standing narrative. There was a lot of hesitancy because of the implications of providing this perk. However, the court found this disparity in treatment between men and women to be unconstitutional, which is a win for equality, but it’s fascinating to observe how the dynamic changes when the roles are reversed.
It can be difficult for spouses of service members to hold jobs, particularly if their partner keeps getting new orders and has to move across the country before they’re able to find something. It makes sense that it should apply to any partner in this case, not just a wife. The struggles faced by a military spouse are the same regardless of their gender, and the court moves it to a more equitable state.
I also think it’s interesting that the concurrence wanted to wait for the ERA before making it a suspect classification. One of the biggest arguments against the ERA is that it is unnecessary because it is already protected by the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, but that has certainly seemed to not be case in the past.
It seems to me like the federal statute placing extra requirements for women seeking dependency status for their husbands was a way of saying “there’s no way men are dependent on women” because men have always been deemed the breadwinners of the household.
In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a backwards technicality which barred men from receiving a dependent’s allowance was unconstitutional on account of the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Like Reed v. Reed, this shows the Court going in a radically different direction than it did decades earlier with cases like Muller v. Oregon. It seems like, beginning in the 1970s, the Court gradually accepted that equal treatment under the law included sex.
In this case, the Supreme Court found that a federal law which stipulated different requirements for claiming a male or female spouse as a dependent was an violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court reasoned that “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated” was unconstitutional. The Court’s ruling in this case appears to have social implications for women; that perhaps the Court is recognizing that women can be the primary provider for their family, including their male spouse.
In this case the law was designed for husband to be the “breadwinner” or head of household. The fact that 99 percent of the military were male at the time, a husband being a dependent was unfathomable. The stipulation of women having to prove she paid more than one-half of her husbands’ living expenses was more than likely put in place to stop fraud. With this requirement not in place it would have been quite easy for husbands of military wives to work full time as civilian and claim dependency status of the armed forces.
“With this requirement not in place it would have been quite easy for husbands of military wives to work full time as civilian and claim dependency status of the armed forces.” Why would this be a problem, or better yet, unconstitutional? For example, don’t married people choose which person’s health plan to use all the time?
I found it curious to see the dynamic of this case. We have seen in previous cases how law has been utilized to benefit men and create more differences between sexes. Also, we have seen how majority of cases taken the woman is the one affected. However, in this case the request made by Frontiero places the husbands as the affected as they could not be dependent of their wives. At the end of the day this request is seeking for something beneficial for the man, but it meant giving woman a greater position, which did not fit the narrative the court had for many years. There was a lot of hesitation because of what entailed giving this benefit. Fortunately, the court did find this distinction of treatment between sexes unconstitutional which is a victory for equality, but it is interesting to see the dynamic when roles are reversed.
This case ensured that our society kept up with the evolution of women’s roles as they were beginning to change. It became more and more frequent for a women to be the breadwinner of the house or to be in enlisted in the military while their husband stayed at home; things that originally were not accounted for in federal law. This case acknowledged the change in women’s roles.
In this case, Sharron Frontiero was a lieutenant in the US Air Force and asked for a dependent’s allowance for her husband. However, her request was turned down because a dependent’s allowance was only offered for the wives of male members of the military, and since her husband was not a woman, he thus isn’t eligible for a dependent’s allowance. This is a violation of the Due Process clause of the 5th amendment because this statue had unequal treatment of men and women who are of similar status. Even so, justices chose not to view this case as a violation of that clause since they said that that clause was only for more large, arbitrary decisions. This is yet another time when society based sex-discrimination makes its way into legal decsion-making.
In Frontiero v. Richardson, the legislative question being presented was whether or not the federal law requiring different qualifications for men and women for military spouse dependency discriminate against women and violate the fifth amendment’s Due Process? The court ruled that the equal protection in the fifth amendment due process clause were violated in the Federal Law that imposed requirements on women and not the same to men. One Justice presented the argument that the same classification of sex could be used with a strict standard review as a classification of race. However, three Justices supported the argument claiming that the Federal Law drawing lines between sexes alone was arbitrary legislation that is not permitted in the Constitution. Similar to Reed v. Reed, the Supreme Court presented an argument, that I believe, could provide future precedents stating the arbitrariness of gender-bias.
Seeing that the Supreme Court found the differing qualifications for spousal dependency based on gender violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause is a success for gender equality because it helps to reverse the traditional gender roles that relegate the man into the role of breadwinner and protector. The court case allows married military servicewomen to be scrutinized under the same set of requirements that male service men must when seeking dependence for their spouse. The Court deemed this rule to violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection requirements.
Desiree Estrada 3:00 PM Mar 9
This case reminds me of the Charles Moritz case one of Ruth Bader’s first litigations before the supreme court. The case very similarly to Charles Moritz’s case discriminates against men. The case assumes gender roles, in this case it assumes that th man could not be a dependent on his wife’s behalf. Similarly in the Charles Moritz’s case it assumes that only a caregiver can be female. Thus, in this case we see a change as the court rules it unconstitutional that men indeed can be a dependent to military wives.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ashanti Simpkins
Ashanti Simpkins 1:06 AM Feb 23
gender discrimination, in this case, directly affects male husbands whose spouse is in the military. The court rules that the dissimilar treatment of male spouses with female wives who are in the military was unconstitutional.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Mohammed Alzweiy
Mohammed Alzweiy 9:07 PM Feb 18
This case was interesting as the court ruled in favor of Frontiero, and it is an example of sex discrimination being applied towards men. This reminds me of the case of Charles Moritz which was addressed in the film “On the Basis of Sex”.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jyah Vora
Jyah Vora 4:02 PM Feb 17
In this case, Sharron Frontiero a lieutenant in the Air Force sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. However, the statute stated that wives of members of the military automatically became defendants (not the husbands unless they depended on their wives for over half of their support). The Court ruled that this statute was unconstitutionally discriminatory against women and therefore violated the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause. The reasoning for the Court was that this was a “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated.”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Osikenoya Usman-Aliu
Osikenoya Usman-Aliu 10:46 PM Feb 16
Facts
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was turned down.
Question
Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Constitutional Provision at Issue
Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Holding
8-1 decision for Frontiero
Reasoning of the Majority
The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” violating the Due Process Clause. Applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, the Court found that the government’s interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices. The Court held that statutes that drew lines between the sexes on those grounds alone necessarily involved “the ‘very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution.'”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Grace Castillo Rojo Moreno
Grace Castillo Rojo Moreno 10:42 PM Feb 16
The law that it is pertinent to mention in Frontiero v. Richardson is that when females were part of the military, husbands had to be able to demonstrate that the wife was responsible of 1/2 of their support while in the case of men in the military it gave women all the benefits automatically. Sharron’s husband wanted all the benefits which of course the lack of the benefits was found unconstitutional which is clearly because he is a man. I would like to also mention that I think this law existed because women had to be “less” than men and they could never be in a “superior” position than men.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ariana Lopez
Ariana Lopez 9:16 AM Feb 16
I am surprised with the turn out and decision. For it to be 1973, and for the courts to have deemed that application denial as unconstitutional is almost shocking. I would have thought them to side by it due to the recency of the Ohio cases that we read a couple classes ago.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ben Lee
Ben Lee 9:00 AM Feb 16
This seems like a messy result, Though the decision was 8-1, the majority did not agree on a precise opinion. The plurality opinion found the sex was an inherently suspect classification. the 4 other justices in the majority declined to agree, but still felt the case should be overturned.
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
I will have to disagree. Are you saying that 5 of 9 (“the 4 other justices”) ruled that sex is a suspect classification, thus triggering the strict scrutiny level of equal protection analysis? I am subtracting 5 from 9 equals 4…
3:27 PM Feb 16•Delete
Ben Lee
Ben Lee
mean the 4 other of the majority. So the opinions were parsed out into 8 in favor, of those 8, 4 wanted gender to be considered a suspect classification. The concurrences of Justice Stewart and Justice Powell made up “the 4 other Justices.
3:55 PM Feb 16•Delete
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
got it, so a majority of the Court did not find that gender was inherently suspect, it does not trigger strict scrutiny?
4:02 PM Feb 16•Delete
Ben Lee
Ben Lee
Truthfully I am a little unclear on that. from what I understand, in this case strict scrutiny was applied, but this case did not act as precedent since the opinion was not shared by the majority.
4:12 PM Feb 16•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Seamus McNamara
Seamus McNamara 8:17 AM Feb 16
This case is interesting in its flipping of traditional gender roles. The higher position of Mrs. Frontiero over her husband I think uncomforted the court and the dependent in question being a man, as many of my classmates have noted, influenced the courts decision even if marginally.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Daniela Guerrero Rodriguez
Daniela Guerrero Rodriguez 1:05 AM Feb 16
In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, Sharron Frontiero was a married woman and Air Force officer. Under federal law, the wives of male members of the military automatically became dependents and received allowances and benefits. However, Husbands of female members had to prove that the wife was responsible for over one-half of their support. Sharron Frontiero was denied her application for benefits because she failed to prove that her husband was in fact dependent, once this matter was taken to court, the court recognized that the federal military law was unconstitutional. This result achieves equality in the matter, nonetheless, I have to agree with my classmates, it is hard to assume that this decision has disregarded the fact that the victim is male.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Denice Bernal
Denice Bernal 12:46 AM Feb 16
Not only does this precedent seem unconstitutional it seems intentional. This precedent would have discouraged women from holder higher positions than their husbands and sacrifice their positions in their relationships in order to ensure that her husband would have the better job in order to ensure medical and other such benefits.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Nizar Quafisheh
Nizar Quafisheh 11:39 PM Feb 15
Regarding the result of this case it is pleasant, as Mrs. Frontiero was able to rightfully receive what pursued in the court of law, which has been rare as we analyze the cases of previous women. However, as my classmates point out it is hard to assume that the result of the fifth amendment’s due process being upheld is not because the victim in this case was a male.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Yoli Esparza
Yoli Esparza 11:36 PM Feb 15
It’s oddly shocking this situation. to see hat the reversal of the roles for this case in particular because the men seen as the dependent, as this hardly ever happened during the time this case took place as women were the ones who were seen as needing protection.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jeff Gemini
Jeff Gemini 11:19 PM Feb 15
Good to see it reversed as this is an instance of sexual discrimination for sure. This case is later in date then a lot of what we have looked at so far and I think progression shows here as well. 1973 isn’t crazy recent but its 100 years newer then a lot of cases we have looked at. As such it shows progression has happened in SCOTUS.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Tanmayi Kadamuddi
Tanmayi Kadamuddi 10:44 PM Feb 15
This case seems almost like anomaly when considering the handful of cases we have looked at thus far. I was pleasantly surprised upon seeing that SCOTUS found the federal law in violation of the due process clause of the 5th amendment, since much of what we have studied proved that they weren’t as willing to do so in cases where the 14th amendment is said to be in violation. It is interesting to see the court take on a position that does not perpetrate the notion that women should just stay at home and leave work, such as serving, to men.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ana Al Saad
Ana Al Saad 10:44 PM Feb 15
Justice Brennan’s inclusion of a section of the Court’s opinion on Bradwell v. Illinois is interesting as they now explicitly denounce it and recognizes its role in shaping the Court’s decision to decide cases with “…gross, stereotypical distinctions between the sexes…”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Catherine Ortega
Catherine Ortega 10:17 PM Feb 15
This video is HILARIOUS. I wasn’t sure what the relevance was but when I saw the cat at 4:30 it suddenly all made sense.
In all seriousness though, Frontiero pushes their case through the 5th Amendment because it’s applied to Federal law, which would in turn limit State legistlature. I loved when it was stated that law enforced gender discrimination was referred to as “romantic paternalism,” ultimately harming rather than benefitting the female sex. I may be wrong about this, but it was in the Fronterio case that sex was officially established as a semi-suspect classification and therefore protected under the ‘equal protection clause’ of the 5th Amendment.
I think it is also worth noting that in this case as well as Reed, it was recognized as an essential point that Administrative simplicity was not a “reasonable” enough explanation of sex discrimination. This would be an abuse of police power exercised by the authority of the State.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jocelyn Rodriguez
Jocelyn Rodriguez 10:11 PM Feb 15
Considering the history the SC has with protecting women rights and equality in general I wonder if this outcome was more of a result that a man was the victim (they had to show proof that he was dependent) and thus were more willing to make a case to display it was unconstitutional than to simply past the responsibility along to another institution (often the state) which was often seen when women were being discriminated against.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Zuzanna Kubiszewska
Zuzanna Kubiszewska 9:11 PM Feb 15
This case is strangely surprising. To me, it seems like the role reversal of seeing a woman as the breadwinner of a relationship is something that doesn’t happen very often during the time period in which the case took place so this is quite the interesting case in the first place. As other classmates of mine have pointed out, I’m curious towards the true reasoning behind why this case was taken up in the first place. SCOTUS obviously has discretion when it comes to what cases are heard and I found this to be an interesting selection, though one that cemented the notion that women have the capability of being the main providers within the family. I wonder if they did that because SCOTUS wanted to acknowledge a woman’s ability to be a provider or if they just felt bad for the husband
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Tina Tran
Tina Tran 9:03 PM Feb 15
I find this case very interesting because now the men are the dependents, this is a new precedent that we haven’t seen before.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Emma Floyd
Emma Floyd 8:46 PM Feb 15
Since the Frontieros were challenging a federal law, they used the Fifth Amendment as opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth amendment uses the phrase “no state.”
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
excellent
9:25 PM Feb 15•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Haneen Abdelhafez
Haneen Abdelhafez 8:06 PM Feb 15
The Court’s disagreement as to which level of scrutiny should apply to gender classifications (strict or rational) is conflicting to me. Again, another instance where the political and perhaps religious ideologies of the justices determine cases like these. It is also important to ponder about what the results would have been if the roles were switched, as my classmates pointed out.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Xiomara Martinez
Xiomara Martinez 7:44 PM Feb 15
Very surprising that the Court would rule this case like this. Although, I think maybe it has to do with men not receiving the same benefits as women do. I do not think it was mainly because of the discrimination of servicewomen.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Krystal Garcia Centeno
Krystal Garcia Centeno 7:06 PM Feb 15
This case determined that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex. The Court held that the statue violated the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause implied.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Matt Springer
Matt Springer 5:53 PM Feb 15
In Frontiero v. Richardson, Frontiero, lieutenant in the Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was turned down. She clearly filed suite. The CQ of this case is did a federal law unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause? The Court said, in a 8-1 decsion, YES because the statute in question clearly commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause.
This case really makes you wonder how it would have been if it were the other way around. If the woman were completely depended here, would she be getting the benefits of winning this case? Although, that video was 10/10 quality, literally the best thing I a have seen all day. This class NEEDS video briefs!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Mayra Villa
Mayra Villa 5:20 PM Feb 15
I definitely agree with the point that if a woman was asking for that sort of financial support and benefits, the Court would’ve dragged this case out and possibly not rule in their favor, as others have brought up. Seeing that the husband was a dependent, they ruled in Frontiero’s favor, and I’d say it’s solely because he’s a man and should’ve been the person providing, not the other way around, especially in this time period. Also to comment on that last gif, it’s frustrating how women are expected to prove themselves and how they aren’t lying when men aren’t, and it clearly makes that point.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Donny Situ
Donny Situ 4:48 PM Feb 15
There’s a trope in military culture about soldiers fresh out of boot camp marrying purely for those military spouse benefits (among other things like buying a Camero with horrible interest rates) but they are often characterized as men. Perhaps this is due to demographics being predominately men, but I was shocked to learn that leading up to Frontiero v. Richardson, those same spousal benefits do not apply despite the perquisite circumstances being the same (if we ignore gender). Glad to read that the Supreme Court declared the military policy unconstitutional and that the plurality agreed that the issue of gender discrimination is very much a thing and should be examined under the standard of strict scrutiny.
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
A “Camero” This sounds like a personal experience…? So, do you agree with the Court that the laws, 37 U.S.C. §§ 401 403, and 10 U.S.C. §§ 1072 1076, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Also, wait a minute, what you do mean by “a plurality agreed that the issue of gender discrimination is very much a thing and should be examined under the standard of strict scrutiny.” What does “plurality” mean?
6:36 PM Feb 15 (edited 6:58 PM Feb 15)•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Arnold Brown
Arnold Brown 4:13 PM Feb 15
I agree with my classmates, it was surprising to see the “roles reverse.” The husband was the one who did not have the law in his favor (although this law also negatively affected the wife as well). I wonder if they reached a remedy, without much disagreement/objection, because the case centered around the man.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Brianna Moling
Brianna Moling 11:59 AM Feb 15
In this case, Sharron Frontiero was in the Air Force and requested her husband become a dependent. However, her request was turned down. The Court ruled that this different qualification criteria for males and females (wives automatically become dependents, husbands did not) was unconstitutional. They reasoned that the dissimilar treatment violated the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment.
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
Are you sure it was not the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
12:11 PM Feb 15•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Jacqueline Harmon
Jacqueline Harmon 11:07 AM Feb 15
This case was very interesting and I really think the courts had no way around this one. Reading that a woman was serving the country and being the one to provide made me happy, and I think given the time it was very counter cultural. It was extremely irritating that a woman in the service has to prove that she was providing for people back home.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Cassidy McLernon
Cassidy McLernon 9:55 AM Feb 15
I think this is a very interesting case because the wife is the one in the Air Force, not the husband. I’m sure at the time the majority of people would assume the husband would be in the military due to their ideas of gender roles. It’s great that the Supreme Court ruled in Frontiero’s favor, but a part of me believes that one of the reasons they did that was because the man was getting screwed over.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Nicole Solayman
Nicole Solayman Feb 14, 2021
This case is interesting, in the instance of a man needing more money as a dependent the court grants the request. The court rules that not granting men the dependent’s allowance was unequal and unconstitutional.
The court’s ruling is interesting for two reasons: first, the court appears quick to ensure and allocate the proper resources and allowances for men. As my peers have also brought up, if a woman were to come up and try to retrieve monetary support, the decision might have been different or have stricter requirements.
Second, in the context of gender roles, and how we view the role of the man as the breadwinner, the court’s ruling can be seen as maybe emasculating? Here, a man is dependent on his wife in a monetary sense to support his living. Should men be allotted the same resources as dependent women? Absolutely, and ultimately I agree with the court’s ruling. It is unfair for husbands of military personnel to be shorted on the basis of gender.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Rama Izar
Rama Izar Feb 14, 2021
I was pretty surprised while reading this case. In the last comic attached to this page, the bottom right box refers to this situation as a “rare situation” which was the logic used in questioning whether or not the husband was dependent on his wife for at least half the support. It’s obviously annoying that the wife had prove herself, but given the culture at the time (and strict gender roles), it kind of made sense that the situation itself was so foreign.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Annmarie Gobin
Annmarie Gobin Feb 11, 2021
I think it is interesting how in this case, the roles are reversed. When a man wanted to reap the benefits from a woman, it was an easy decision for the court. I think if the situations were reversed (although women do receive the benefits from their service husband) the case would have been decided differently.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Gaby Ramirez
Gaby Ramirez Feb 11, 2021
I found it really interesting to see the roles kind of reversed in this case. While it did demonstrate that men face gender discrimination at times too, the court seemed really willing to remedy the situation. I feel like if it was the other way around then it would not have been so easy.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user May 7, 2020
While I agree with the ruling, I think it’s interesting how the judgement was reversed because it negatively impacted women but most importantly their husbands.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user May 7, 2020
This case provides an understanding that gender based discrimination happens to men as well and proves that the court is willing to listen to men and provide a remedy to men when males are discriminated against, but rather when females face discrimination, it is least likely that they will have a court rule in their favor.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Malak Kanan
Malak Kanan May 7, 2020
This case attempts answer is sex a suspect classification? Majority of the supreme court has never said that sex is a suspect classification it is subject to strict scrutiny!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Nadeen Elsayed
Nadeen Elsayed Apr 13, 2020
It’s important to remember this while reviewing this case: plurality is not majority, which is why sex was not a suspect classification in Frontiero.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 25, 2020
A first in the example of cases that finally address some gender-based discrimination only being listened to when it is on the male side of discrimination, which in turn doubles to discriminate women as well
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jessica Myles
Jessica Myles Feb 23, 2020
This case is often viewed as discrimination towards men, but the facts of this case are both discriminatory towards men and women. By depriving women in the military the right to provide for their husbands the same way they can is insinuating that women don’t need/deserve to insure financial security for their families even though they’re doing the same job.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 20, 2020
The ruling in this case makes sense in a post Reed v Reed supreme court case, making arbitrary statues that discriminate on the basis on sex unconstitutional. What makes this case interesting to me is that it involves a branch of the military. I would like to see how supreme court cases involving the military compare to similar cases within the general population, as I know the military has been able to discriminate on the basis of sex in other aspects of military life until only recently.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Alexis Rodriguez
Alexis Rodriguez Feb 17, 2020
This case is important because it proved the military’s benefit policy unconstitutional; making military wives prove their husbands were really dependent of them, in comparison of wives depending on men. This brought forth the issue of sex discrimination in the Air Force, making them feel inferior, even though they were capable of doing the same tasks as the men.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 17, 2020
GROUP 7
Frontiero v. Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts-
Female, Lieutenant Frontiero in the US Air Force wanted benefits for her husband.
Military benefit policy stated that the wives of men in the military were allowed benefits-since women were inherently dependent on men.
To gain benefits as the husband of a woman in the military, he would have to prove she pays for more than ½ of expenses; he must demonstrate he is a dependent.
Lt. Fronteiro’s husband did not qualify, he was not dependent on her. He was unable to receive the benefits.
Lt. Frontiero sues and appeals to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Does the military benefit policy violate the constitutionality of the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Decision: Yes.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the military’s benefit policy was unconstitutional. There was no reason why military wives would need benefits anymore than military husbands. The Court argued that although women are more likely to be dependent on men than men on women, the times are different now and that is not guaranteed. It may actually be costing the military to guarantee benefits to all military wives. The Court applied strict scrutiny standard in this case to determine that receiving benefits could not be granted differently because of sex.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 17, 2020
. Frontiero is an important decision in several respects, including the fact that it informed the military establishment that in terms of pay, allowances and general treatment, women must be considered on an equal plane as men.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 16, 2020
Frontiero v. Richardson is unique to study because the military law serves to punish the husband simply because he is providing less than the wife and she is a member of the Air Force. This was not a general law that applied to managers at Sears, this is our federal government saying, “why should you get benefits for being married to a woman in the service? you’re a man.. go to work and pay 50.1% of the bills, if not more!” This punishes both of them for stepping outside gender roles. It is excellent that there are more general words used in the rulings so they cannot be manipulated, you cannot include sex in legislation is a broad and bold statement that aims to effectively protect aganist any sex based laws.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Abigail Zurita-Calvario
Abigail Zurita-Calvario Feb 13, 2020
Group 8 Brief
Frontiero v. Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, wanted a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was denied.
Did a federal law that requiring different criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Decision: Yes (8-1)
Reasoning: The statutes deprived servicewomen and their spouses from the same rights and privileges granted to servicemen and their spouses. A law that requires dissimilar treatment for men and women is unconstitutional.
I think the denial of Frontiero’s request is a blatant example of the continuance of an unequal agenda regarding men and women. There is this strong concept, some may say culture, that men cannot be anything but the provider of the home. When situations like these appear, it threatens to debunk this sexist and misogynistic culture which is why they are shut down right away, just like Frontiero’s request. This country continues to emit a culture that places men as the providers and women as the receivers.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Elizabeth Peralta
Elizabeth Peralta Feb 13, 2020
I think it’s important to notice that this case shows the difference in expectations that genders had not only in society but in the military as well. The law failed to realize that women in the force could have their husbands be dependent on them, and that men won’t always be the primary income in a home. This case outcome was a good step towards the right direction in fighting discrimination on the basis of sex.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Nancy Martinez Arocho
Nancy Martinez Arocho Feb 13, 2020
After Reed v. Reed, I think we start seeing a shift between constitutional rights relating to gender protections against discrimination being expanded, which were not protected previously under the constitution in the same way that race is. I am interested to find out how the dependency application in the military works? after this ruling, do all military members have to prove their spouse is dependent for over half of their support or do all military members spouses automatically become dependents of their spouse, even if their salary is actually way higher?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Diana Alvarado
Diana Alvarado Feb 13, 2020
Group 6 Brief
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
411 US 677 (1973)
Facts:
Sharon Frontier, a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, sought housing and medical benefits for her husband, Joseph, that she claimed as a “dependent.” Although servicemen could automatically get benefits if they claimed their wives as dependents, servicewomen had to prove that their husbands were dependent on them for more than half their support. Joseph did not qualify, in which they could not receive benefits. Sharon sued and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Did having different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Holding: 8-1 for Frontiero
Reasoning:
The Court held that the law violated the Due Process clause and the equal protection requirements since it clearly contained different treatment for men and women who in similar situations. Chief Justice Warren E. referred to the Court’s ruling in Reed v. Reed where any law that draws the line between sexes is unconstitutional.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Annalee Johnson
Annalee Johnson Feb 12, 2020
Group 5
Facts of the Case
Sharon Frontiero, servicewoman in the air force, sought a dependence allowance for her husband under federal law in which benefits are given to spouses of military members. Male military members could automatically claim their wives as dependents, but female military members had to account for over one-half of the income in order to claim their husbands as dependents. As such, Frontiero’s request was denied.
Question
Did differing criteria for men and women violate the 5th AMendment’s due process clause?
Holding
8-1: yes, the federal law was unconstitutional
Plurality Decision
The distinction between men and women under the basis of administrative convenience constituted as an arbitrary decision.
Reasoning was approached based on the reasoning of Reed v. Reed
Concurring Opinion
The distinction along the sexes alone constituted an arbitrary decision.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deidre Mensah
Deidre Mensah Feb 12, 2020
I am perplexed about the ruling of this case because mostly cases, and things in general, do not go in favor of women. Also, I was excited about how the justices in charge of this case did not let the idea of a man being dependent on a woman changed their mind from doing what is right, by ruling in favor of the woman and her husband. This made me feel like women can have a stand in the court and be treated equally, fairly and without discrimination if our society allowed it and were more open-minded about gender and all that comes with.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Brittany Tamayo
Brittany Tamayo Feb 12, 2020
The law that this case overturned in itself was discriminatory. It negated the fact that women can very much be in the service too, and be providers for their husbands, whether it was more than half or not. The ruling of this case it a step in the right direction, and shows that the Due Process clause was successfully being used to bring more equal rights to women.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Leya Ismail
Leya Ismail Feb 12, 2020
I’m actually surprised by the outcome of this case, because historically, recognizing man as being dependent on a woman was seen as straying from the traditional gender roles and indirectly went against “the law of the creator”. The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated,” which was a violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that are stipulated within the clause.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Sylvia Waz
Sylvia Waz Feb 12, 2020
I think this case is a good step forward regarding women’s rights, especially with the military. I have noticed that the military tends to be more conservative when it comes to gender and women’s issues such as not allowing women to participate in combat until 2013. The fact that this happened in the 70’s is a good sign that the supreme court was willing to progress military procedures.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2020
If a male had to prove that one half of his support came from his wife in order to qualify for the benefits but a woman in the same situation did not, I would say that is one sided. Maybe this is the governments way of dismissing the working woman. The supreme court reversed the decision that denied Frontiero of her requests for benefits for her husband on the basis that these benefits were being handed out differently based on gender.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2020
landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Marissa Scavelli
Marissa Scavelli Feb 12, 2020
In this case, Sharron Frontiero, a United States Airforce officer, wanted to claim benefits for her husband as a dependant, but her application was denied. She brought suit and her case was appealed to the Supreme Court where they ruled in an 8-1 decision in favor of Frontiero. The Supreme Court held that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently on the basis of sex. Although, the concurring justices differed in their opinions, they unilaterally agreed that the law requiring differing criteria for male military spousal dependants the same rights as female dependants unconstitutionally discriminated against women in the military thus violating the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Aysha Ahmed
Aysha Ahmed Feb 12, 2020
The federal law that was overturned by the S.C tried to confine a women’s ability to provide for her family. It was believed that any financial earnings would only be provided by the man even though the women was just as capable. A women must almost always be dependent on her husband. Gender discrimination was very apparent in this case and the law was said to violate the Due Process Clause.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Liliana Diaz
Liliana Diaz Feb 12, 2020
I found the Court’s ruling that the statue was in violation of the Due Process Clause refreshing. I think that in this case we start to see a shift that recognizes sex based discrimination and women’s roles in society. I do think however that this case seems to be very specific in that it takes into consideration sex based discrimination for people that are in similar situations (military). Still though, the fact that a man could be dependent on a woman was recognized by the Court is a big step forward
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2020
Like Zara had said below it appears as if the court is starting to recognize this sex best discrimination in the law and is starting to do something about it. Reed v Reed was a unanimous decision and in this case it was 8-1 in favor of Frontiero, so it does appear as if most of the court is starting to recognize this. There was even comments made by justices pertaining to this case on how sex based discrimination is no different than raced based discrimination.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kiera Gnatz
Kiera Gnatz Feb 11, 2020
A great example of the substantive due process issue we discussed in class! I do find it curious though that sex is only considered to be semi-suspect as a classification (being in the same category as illegitimacy, rather than race. I find it much more likely someone will be discriminated against due to their gender than I believe someone would be discriminated against based on the “legitimacy” of their birth.)
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 10, 2020
Frontiero v. Richardson, the issue being did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the fifth amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court ruled yes, with various different opinions. The reason the 5th Amendment was used for argument and not the 14th Amendment, because the 14th states “No state shall”, neither parties were states to argue the 14th amendment. I find it intriguing that Justice Powell in his concurring opinion, would not go so far as to hold sex discrimination to the same standard as race. Discrimination is Discrimination Period!!!!!!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Zara Khan
Zara Khan Apr 7, 2019
It is again very refreshing to see that the Supreme Court is starting to recognize that this kind of gender based discrimination is unconstitutional. It seems that the Court is starting to shift their rulings on these types of cases. Although, I was not surprised by the fact that Sharron Frontiero’s application for housing and medical benefits for her husband were denied. I think this case is a good example of how gender based discrimination not only affects women, but men as well. In this case, I think the expectation was that husbands should be able to take care of themselves and only if they can’t pay for the majority of their living costs will they receive the benefits, whereas if it was a wife she was automatically seen as a dependent, which is a lot of gender role stereotyping within itself.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 14, 2019
I’m reading comments that are saying they used the 5th amendment because the 14th amendment is “no state shall…” but a year later the SC would uphold a Florida statute that did not protect widowers just widows? Whats the difference besides the fact that this is a federal case not a state case? Is it because it was in line with the state objective?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Patrick Scaletta
Patrick Scaletta Feb 13, 2019
Two interesting points I found the Court noted were:
A. ” Thus, to this extent, at least, it may fairly be said that these statutes command “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are . . . similarly situated.” I believe the fact that the Court found the parties involved (or other individuals the Frontieros symbolically represented) to be similarly situated. To me, that means there were no other material factors to otherwise justify or mitigate the biased legislation both on its face and in application.
and
B. ” Moreover, the Government concedes that the differential treatment accorded men and women under these statutes serves no purpose other than mere “administrative convenience.” The Court did recognize that at the time, at least 99% of service members were men. Any time and money saved (convenience) through the legislation would not have been a narrowly tailored method of furthering a governmental interest.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 13, 2019
Frontiero v. Richardson tested the legality of sex discrimination. This case challenged the idea that women are dependent on men for money and other benefits. The Court dismissed the Air Force’s argument that they were saving administrative costs for automatically granting spousal benefits from military husbands to their wives. Although they did not consider if women need not be dependent on their husbands for benefits, therefore costing the Air Force extra.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ines Josefina Castaneda
Ines Josefina Castaneda Feb 13, 2019
In this case the individuals involved finally are noticing that they need to use the amendment the deals with federal law not state.
I also have reason to believe that this case was a win for fragile masculinity because men were being affected negatively an not receiving the allowance from their wifes who were serving. Men are belived the soul bread or money makers of the household and until they saw how that mentality affected them they did finally looked at it differently.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 13, 2019
The significance of the Frontiero’s using the 5th amendment was due to the fact that this case challenging a federal not a state statute ( I.E. remember crukinshank no state shall , and boiling vs shapre DC not a state ), so that was the reason why they challenged this case using the 5th and not the 14th, also the justices knew when they decided even if the Frontiero’s used the 5th amendment the precedent would apply to the states as well . Also, i think something maybe a lot people overlook in this case was that the court was very divided on how the statue violated the due process clause and it should be noted to see that there was no majority in rational because I think it shows that at this time the court was shifting and even the justices were shifting on how they applied strict scrutiny in cases regarding gender and sex discrimination .
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 13, 2019
The Court’s use of the 5th amendment instead of the 14th is due to the 14th amendment’s explicit phrasing of “No state shall” because neither parties are States, the Court can’t analyze this case under the 14th amendment’s due process clause.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 13, 2019
The Frontiero’s used the 5th amendment because their complaint involved a federal statute. However, the court knew that their decision would apply to the due process clause of the 14th hence limiting state governments.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Denver Hatcher
Denver Hatcher Feb 13, 2019
Justice Brennan effectively cites Reed v Reed, admits to the longstanding discrimination on the basis of sex, and even refers to the reigning attitude as ‘romantic paternalism,’. He has a rather heartening approach to the verdict. However, all that is followed by Justice Stewart’s concurrence which is not much of an approvement on dissent. He states his weariness for providing that discrimination based on sex is a suspect claim that warrants judicial scrutiny. He calls this unnecessary for the ruling and considers it preemptive of an Equal Rights Amendment.
This case helped me to contextualize the differing uses of the nearly identical Equal Protections clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles Feb 13, 2019
Jung and Sophia, why the 5th and not the 14th?
Reply
Deleted user
Deleted user
They used the 5th instead of the 14th because the 14th explicitly says “No state shall…”, and neither parties in the case are states. SCOTUS wouldn’t be able to analyze under the due process clause in the 14th amendment.
Feb 13, 2019•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2019
“The uncertainty engendered by the Court’s opinion in Reed v. Reed surfaced the very next term in a case called Frontiero v. Richardson.”
“Sharron Frontiero, an air force lieutenant, sought an increased housing allowance after she married, as well as dental and medical benefits for her husband, Joseph, a full-time college student. Under federal law, a married man in the armed forces was automatically entitled to such perquisites, whether his wife earned a lot or a little, but a married woman was unable to obtain them unless she could prove that her husband was dependent on her for more than one-half his support. Although Sharron earned more than Joseph’s monthly veteran’s stipend, he did not receive more than half his support from her. Sharron was therefore denied the additional benefits.”
“The Frontieros sued in federal court, arguing that the difference in treatment of men and women violated the Constitution: the same benefits available to married men in the “uniformed services” should extend to married women, without a showing of actual dependency. (Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies only to action taken by a state-not by the federal government-the Frontieros had to invoke the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which does apply to federal action. However, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause to require equal protection from the federal government as well.) Normally, a federal case goes through three levels of review: the district court, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. But because this case presented a constitutional challenge to a federal statute, it came before a three-judge district court whose decision could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.”
http://supremecourthistory.org/lc_a_double_standard.html
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2019
This is reversing the idea that women need to stay home and the men need to be breadwinners. Although the cases we described Tuesday and last week emphasize the women’s role in society as home makers and mothers, this case (like in Reed v. Reed) the basis of sex cannot be used to discriminate/ deny rights to someone.
Reply
Kevin Lyles
Kevin Lyles
“the basis of sex cannot be used to discriminate/ deny rights to someone” Is the ruling really that broad, or, it is a narrow ruling?
Feb 13, 2019•Edit•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 21, 2018
Highly entertaining video depiction of the case with fantastic dialogue^
In seriousness, it seems as though the Air Force spouse dependency law was drafted before it was even a possibility for women to serve.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 14, 2018
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_frontiero.html
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 9, 2017
Clear case of discrimination based on gender. Servicemen received benefits that servicewomen did not.
Sidebar: While stories like this may be brushed aside as “women’s issues” – these are actually family and economic issues. When women do better, everyone does better. Once Sharron was granted the same advantage servicemen had, her husband also benefited from her gain.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 9, 2017
While I was glad this case ended in a reversal, it is upsetting to hear that the case had to be taken up in the first place, as it completely went against the equality of both women and men, restricting them to these strict “ideal” gender roles society seemed so intent on upholding.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 8, 2017
I agree with the court’s decision to allow men to be dependents of their spouses. The statue that this case overturned basically told women that belong in the house as the homemaker while, men should be the bread winner and not the other way around.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Mar 16, 2016
This case directly reflects the idea as to what a woman role is and what a mans role is. Why shouldn’t a woman be able to apply benefits to her husband if she so chooses. I am glad that this was reversed and that they realized that this was a a sexist regulation.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2016
wow this was deffinitely an interesting read. There was definitely unfair treatment of women in this case and it was definitely unconstitutional under the due process clause, but one of the main parts of this case is not at first what meets the eye. One of the main parts of this case is that some of the judges in the SC decided that cases involving gender should be seen as suspect because “congress has manifested and increasing sensitivity to sex-based classification ” and because “moreover since sex, like race and national origin, is an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth, the imposition of special disabilities upon the memvers of a particular sex because of their sex would seem to violate ‘the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility’ weber v. aetena casualty and surety” but the thing is only 4 of the 9 judges were in aggrement with this 4 others decided that sex wasn’t a suspect classification and 1 blatantly dissented, so the suspect opinion now has a hard time treading the white waters of supreme court cases involving gender issues.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2016
I too found interesting how a man can not possibly be seen as dependent to a woman, and that it must be proved. This was very sexist toward women and men. It it great that the court was able to recognize that this was non sense. It’s also striking to realize that relatively speaking, this case is fairly recent.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 10, 2016
Is it discrimination to the man too? A husband is not a dependent automatically but a wife is….meaning a man has to prove he can’t pay for 1/2 his cost of living. I don’t know, I just thought about flipping the perspective.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 10, 2016
I like Brennan’s words about “romantic paternalism” and it’s “placing women not on a pedestal, but in a cage”. Its nuts that this case was decided almost 45 years ago and these words still ring so true.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 10, 2016
Yeah this is an easy case where there was, as the court itself said, “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated”. It’s good to see it was an 8-1 decision on such a topic in 1973, but sad that the law wasn’t changed until then. This in all likelihood was one of those things the military was not going to change unless told to… just so they could save a bit of extra money.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 9, 2016
“Spouses of female are not dependents unless they are in fact, dependent for over one half of their support.”
The more and more I read cases like these, the more I become angry and grateful for how much we have progressed. All these laws and regulations seem to only be concerned with gender. As Lyles constantly states, Newton’s 3rd law of motion “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” applies directly to this case. For the laws extended to all women, they were also granted to men. For all laws extended to men, WHY were they not granted to women?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2015
So let me get this right, the court is not saying that there is NO reason in which gender discrimination is acceptable. They are saying if there is a reason it better be reasonable, and WE will decide what is reasonable.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
Sorry for the late comment, um but in the future could you guys upload your briefs? Makes it easier for everyone. But I find it unique that thos case clearly discriminates against servicewomen but the men they are married to as well.
Pedro Ramirez
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
“Nevertheless, it can hardly be doubted that, in part because the high visibility of the sex characteristic, women still face the pervasive, although at times more subtle, discrimination in our educational institutions, on the job market and, perhaps most conspicuously, in the political arena.”
Within Frontiero v. Richardson, the Court appears to have reached a state where it is effectively saying, “my bad, we got it wrong,” in regard to the unequally structured laws along the lines of gender. However, I think it’s significant that the Court reaffirms the status of sex as a suspect classification under Brennan’s opinion. Race and gender frequently converge, seeming to place them on an even plane. The quote above, in my opinion, reflects many common themes between race and gender, and the case showed a shift in awareness on the part of many Justices.
In addition, as the Court cited Reed v. Reed to illustrate a parallel arbitrary reasoning in regard to the laws in dispute in both cases, I think these two cases illustrate how quickly the Court can reverse itself, even if rare.
Thomas Delregno – Team 4
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
Sharron and Joseph Frontiero v. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Defense
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Facts of Case: Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Under Federal law, the wives of male members of the military automatically became dependents and received housing and medical benefits. However, husbands of female members of the military were not accepted as dependents and could not receive the same benefits unless the servicewoman was able to prove that her husband was dependent on her for over one-half of his living costs. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was denied because she did not pay more than half of her husband’s living costs. Therefore, Frontiero pressed a claim alleging that this policy dined her the equal protection of laws afforded under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Question: does this difference in treatment constitute an unconstitutional discrimination against servicewomen in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: Yes. 8 votes for Frontiero, 1 vote against
Reasoning: the statute in question was so unfair that it clearly violated the “due process of law” and unreasonably discriminated on the basis of sex. By ignoring the individuals qualifications of particular applicants, the challenged statute provided “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are… similarly situated.” The Court found that following this type of statute would be applying exactly what the Constitution forbids.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued this case on behalf of the ACLU.
” The Air Force argued that the policy was intended to save administrative costs by not forcing the military bureaucracy to determine that every wife was in fact a dependent. Justice Brennan dismissed this argument, saying that, although as an empirical matter more wives than husbands are dependent for support on their spouses, still, by automatically granting benefits to wives who might not truly be dependents, the Air Force might actually be losing money because of this policy—and the Air Force had not presented evidence to the contrary”
The plurality opinion of the Court argued suggested that a strict standard of judicial scrutiny for those laws and regulations that classified on the basis of sex was needed, due to America’s “long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination”
Christen Lee
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
The policy in question was one that definitely discriminated against servicewomen and violates the due process clause. The fact that women had to prove their spouse is dependent on them for half of their finances is an irrational double standard, and assumes that women are never the primary income earner in a family. The unnecessary requirement of proof that a servicewomen support 50% of their spouses finances displays that the policy is both unnecessary and discriminatory.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
The air force law requiring that women proved that they support more than 50% their husband’s financial need is based on nothing but sexism. It is based on the assumption that men are always the breadwinner and any claim that is saying otherwise is more prone be seen as deceptive, and the air force require that they go through extra steps to prove that they are supporting their husband finances more 50%, even though the overwhelming majority of those who receive the extra housing allowance and extra medical benefits are men who do not have to prove that they pay for more than half of their wives expenses; it is just assumed that they do.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kyle Polak
Kyle Polak Feb 11, 2015
Newtons 3rd law applies to this case. Every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Any rights extended to women ie maternity leave, etc, could be granted to men on account of the Due Process Law citing Frontiero v Richardson.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 11, 2015
This case was a clear indication of gender discrimination. There is no justification as to why males did not need proof for dependency for their wives and women did. Because of this rule, Joseph Frontiero did not receive any benefits.
Because the court reversed their decision, this case was a hallmark for women to receive equal legal support and benefits.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2014
The landmark decision helped pave the way for servicewomen to receive equal benefits and for all women to receive equal treatment under the law
Faith Feinberg t4
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user Feb 12, 2014
I. Sharron and Joseph Frontiero v. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Defense
411 U.S. 677 (1973)
II. Facts of Case: Sharron Frontiero sought to claim her husband as a dependent seeking medical and housing benefits. Servicewomen had to prove that they paid for more than half of their husbands living costs, while servicemen could claim their wives as dependents automatically. Joseph did not qualify as a dependent because Sharon Frontiero paid less than half of Joseph’s living costs. Sharron sued claiming that the military policy was unconstitutional due to its gender classification.
III. Legal Question: Is this policy unconstitutional and discriminatory against servicewomen? Is this policy in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
IV: Decision and action: Yes. Reverse decision of the District Court.
V. Reasoning: The law was discriminatory because the policy was a burdensome procedural process for servicewomen, not servicemen. Men did not have to go through a process to establish their wives dependency. It was also discriminatory because servicemen were granted benefits that the servicewomen were not. Gender discrimination occurred under the military policy. Frontiero’s case was comparable to Reed v. Reed where the court found that the gender based Idaho Statute was unconstitutional.
Loraine Catania t4
Reply