Frontiero v. Richardson
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (June 2023) |
Frontiero v. Richardson | |
---|---|
Subsequent | None |
Holding | |
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. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Brennan, joined by Douglas, White, Marshall |
Concurrence | Stewart (in judgment) |
Concurrence | Powell (in judgment), joined by Burger, Blackmun |
Dissent | Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V; 37 U.S.C. §§ 401, 403; 10 U.S.C. §§ 1072, 1076 |
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was a
Background
Sharron Frontiero, a
Opinion of the Court
A plurality of the Court (
More importantly, the plurality argued for a strict standard of judicial scrutiny for those laws and regulations that classified on the basis of sex, instead of mere rational basis review. (See the appropriate section of the Equal Protection Clause article for more information on the different levels of Equal Protection scrutiny.) A heightened standard of review, the plurality argued, was needed due to America's "long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination":
[T]he sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. 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. [Citations omitted.]
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).
Concurring and dissenting opinions
Justices
See also
Notes
- incorporation, made the standards of the Equal Protection Clause applicable to the federal government, it was for practical purposes an addition not to due process, but rather to equal protection jurisprudence.
- ^ Joshua E. Kastenberg, Shaping U.S. Military Law: Governing a Constitutional Military. (London: Ashgate Press, 2014), 151-2
Further reading
- Basic, Christine (2004). "Strict Scrutiny and the Sexual Revolution: Frontiero v. Richardson". Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. 14: 117. ISSN 0896-5595.
- McKenny, Betsy B. (1974). "Frontiero v. Richardson: Characterization of Sex-Based Classifications". Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 6: 239. ISSN 0090-7944.
External links
- Text of Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)