Justice Stewart also concurred in the result, but said nothing about the Equal Rights Amendment; instead, he stated only that he agreed that the statutes in question "work an invidious discrimination in violation of the Constitution." Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, The Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts In Constitutional Cases, The Bill Of Rights, The Civil War Amendments, And Their Inter-Relationship, The Due Process, Contract, And Just Compensation Clauses And The Review Of The Reasonableness Of Legislation, Defining The Scope Of 'Liberty' And 'Property' Protected By The Due Process Clause-The Procedural Due Process Cases, Application Of The Post Civil War Amendments To Private Conduct: Congressional Power To Enforce The Amendments, Governmental Control Of The Content Of Expression, Restrictions On Time, Place, Or Matter Of Expression, Protection Of Penumbral First Amendment Rights, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 22 Ill.411 U.S. 677, 93 S. Ct. 1764, 36 L. Ed. Frontiero sued for a permanent injunction of the law in Federal District Court. Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial.

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. Brennan, joined by Douglas, White, Marshall, This page was last edited on 12 February 2020, at 22:07. Frontiero v. Richardson set the stage for the Court’s current standard of applying “intermediate scrutiny” — which is higher than rational basis but lower than strict scrutiny — on laws discriminating on the basis of gender. The Due Process Clause is violated by this gender classification.

Technically, the case was decided under the, Joshua E. Kastenberg, Shaping U.S. Military Law: Governing a Constitutional Military. The question of whether to apply heightened scrutiny to statutes that discriminate based on sex should be left for another day. Concurrence. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial.

Second, Justice Powell wrote that "deferring" on this question was supported by the ongoing debate about over the Equal Rights Amendment which, if adopted, would resolve the question precisely and "represent the will of the people accomplished in the manner prescribed by the Constitution." Husbands of women in the armed forces, however, had to first prove that they were dependent upon their wives for over one-half of their support before they could receive benefits as “dependents.”. In 1971, as Frontiero’s case was moving through the courts, Ginsburg scored an early, partial victory in the Supreme Court case Reed v. Reed. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. The plurality's application of "strict scrutiny" was not adopted in subsequent cases for evaluating gender discrimination claims; instead, so-called "intermediate scrutiny" was adopted in Craig v. Boren (1976). Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case[1] which decided 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 law violated the. Ginsburg wrote the brief for petitioner Sally Reed, who argued that she was passed over in favor of her ex-husband in administering the estate of their deceased son solely because she was a woman. 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.[2]. 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. Joseph did not qualify under this rule, and therefore could not get benefits. Classifications based on sex are inherently suspect per the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment and must be subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
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. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter.

Frontiero v. Richardson Case Brief. A law that discriminates based on gender is inherently suspect and requires heightened scrutiny; thus, a law that requires dissimilar treatment of men and women who are similarly situated solely for reasons of administrative convenience violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause And The Review Of The Reasonableness Of Legislation, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Reversed. Issue. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year).

The District Court speculated that the dissimilar treatment of the sexes was because most military personnel were male, and thus it was administratively more efficient to give dependency benefits automatically to the wives of servicemen.

Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, applied for housing and medical benefits for her husband, Joseph, whom she claimed as a "dependent." The Appellant, Sharron Frontiero (Appellant), asserts that a military practice that automatically allowed the wives of male officers to be considered as dependents and thus receive the rights of dependents, but required the female officers, in order to get the benefits for their husbands, to actually prove that their husbands were dependent upon them, is an unconstitutional gender based classification. Statute mandates invidious discrimination, which violates of the Constitution. Future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, representing the ACLU as amicus curiae, was also permitted by the Court to argue in favor of Frontiero.
Everyone should get the same pay for the same job, right? Sharron sued, and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court. Thus, Frontiero won her case by an 8 to 1 vote. Yes. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Lt. Frontiero was represented by Joseph J. Levin, Jr., of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who argued the case before the Court on her behalf.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/677/case.html. Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States militaryto the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex.

Following is the case brief for Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email

If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. This is the issue the Supreme Court took up in Frontiero v. Richardson(1973). As a result, statutory distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its individual members.