government argued that the statute was justified because it administered benefits more cheaply because females are far more likely to be dependent on male officers than the reverse, an automatic conferral of benefits to female dependents saves time and money. As with race classification laws, the plurality argued that gender classification laws should be construed as "inherently suspect" because of a history of discrimination against women, "which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage," and because gender is an immutable characteristic that cannot be changed in response to a law.Īccordingly, the plurality reviewed the statute in question under the strict scrutiny test. The strict scrutiny test provides the greatest level of constitutional protection for the designated group.
Four of the justices, in a plurality opinion written by Justice William Brennan, ruled that the statute was unconstitutional because gender discrimination was "inherently suspect": laws classifying on the basis of gender should be presumed unconstitutional and subjected to "strict scrutiny," in which a law is declared unconstitutional unless the Court finds it provides the only means available (is "narrowly tailored") to serve a "compelling" government interest. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that the statute was unconstitutional because it impermissibly discriminated against women. The district court found no constitutional violation and denied Frontiero relief. She argued that the statute imposed unnecessary barriers to female officers in applying for benefits and gave them fewer benefits compared to similarly situated male officers. Frontiero sued the Secretary of Defense in a federal district court, claiming that the congressional statute discriminated against women in violation of the Constitution. In cases where the dependant is "a wife," by contrast, the benefits are conferred automatically and irrespective of the need for support.įrontiero failed to adequately "demonstrate" in her benefits application that her husband was dependent on her for more than half his support. Air Force, applied for armed service benefits for her husband under a congressional statute that stated "that members of the uniformed services with dependents are entitled to an increased basic allowance for quarters" and "a member's dependents are provided comprehensive medical and dental care." The statute also provided, however, that if the dependant is "a husband," he must be dependent for more than half his support to qualify.
The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the U.S. Another bloc on the Court, however, maintained that such laws are only unconstitutional if they are "irrational." Four justices ruled, for the first time, that laws classifying individuals based on gender are "inherently suspect" and unconstitutional if they do not "narrowly" serve some "compelling" government interest. Richardson (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that a law classifying benefits on the basis of gender violated the Constitution, but it could not agree on why.
0 kommentar(er)
