Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Frontiero v. Richardson(1973): 5th A., Gender Discrimination

t Frontiero, a 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. Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, discriminate against women thereby violating the 5th A.’s Due ProcessClause?

n Majority: BRENNAN: Yes. Brennanbasis his opinion on the idea that classifications based on sex are “inherently invidious: and subject to strict scrutiny. The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due ProcessClause. Applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, the Court found that the gov.’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.'"

n Concurring: POWELL, CHASE, BLACKMUN: It is unnecessary to classify sex as a suspect classification. Democratic institutions are weakened, and confidence in the restraint of the Court is impaired, when we appear unnecessarily to decide sensitive issues of broad social and political importance at the very time they are under consideration within the prescribed constitutional process. (In reference to the ERA, which was being considered by the states, and acknowledged by BRENNAN)

n Dissent: REHNQUIST: For Reasons in District Court…(?)

n Note: Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued the case for the ACLU.


Date: 2015-01-02; view: 732


<== previous page | next page ==>
Bowers v. Hardwick(1986): Fundamental Rights, Sodomy, 8th A. | U.S. v. Virginia(1996): 14th A., Gender Discrimination
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.006 sec.)