Frontiero v. Richardson

Supreme Court of United States
411 U.S. 677 (1973)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Classifications based upon sex are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny; statutes that accord differential treatment to men and women solely for the purpose of administrative convenience violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Facts:

Sharron Frontiero was a lieutenant in the United States Air Force.
A federal statutory scheme provided members of the uniformed services with an increased basic allowance for quarters and comprehensive medical and dental care for their 'dependents.'
Under the statutes, a serviceman could claim his wife as a dependent without any proof of her actual dependency on him.
In contrast, a servicewoman could only claim her husband as a dependent if she demonstrated that he was in fact dependent on her for over one-half of his support.
Lieutenant Frontiero applied for these benefits on behalf of her husband, Joseph Frontiero, who was a full-time student receiving veterans' benefits.
Her application was denied because she failed to show that her husband was dependent on her for more than one-half of his support.

Procedural Posture:

Sharron and Joseph Frontiero commenced a suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against the Secretary of Defense.
The Frontieros sought a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the statutes, arguing they violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A three-judge panel of the District Court, with one judge dissenting, sustained the constitutionality of the statutes and denied the claim.
The Frontieros, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a federal statutory scheme that requires female members of the uniformed services to prove their spouses' dependency to receive benefits, while presuming the dependency of male members' spouses, constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan

Yes, this difference in treatment constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. Classifications based upon sex, like those based on race, alienage, or national origin, are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny. The nation has a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination, rationalized by 'romantic paternalism' that relegated women to an inferior legal status. The government's justification for the differential treatment—administrative convenience—is insufficient to withstand strict scrutiny. Any statutory scheme that draws a sharp line between the sexes solely for administrative convenience commands dissimilar treatment for similarly situated men and women, which is the 'very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution.'

Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell

Yes, the challenged statutes constitute unconstitutional discrimination. However, it is unnecessary to hold that sex is a suspect classification. The Court's decision in Reed v. Reed, which struck down a sex-based classification on rational basis grounds, is sufficient authority to invalidate this law. The Court should not preempt the ongoing democratic process of ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, which would resolve this issue definitively, by making a far-reaching constitutional ruling characterizing sex as a suspect classification.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in sex-based equal protection jurisprudence. Although Justice Brennan's plurality opinion failed to command a majority for making sex a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny, it strongly signaled the Court's growing intolerance for laws based on gender stereotypes. The case pushed the Court toward a heightened standard of review for sex-based classifications, which was formally established as 'intermediate scrutiny' three years later in Craig v. Boren. Frontiero effectively dismantled 'administrative convenience' as a valid justification for treating men and women differently under the law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature