Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The United States has a long history of gender-based discrimination on various issues including voting rights, property ownership, and in the workplace among other related cases. Before 1973, this pervasive nature of sex-based prejudice was common in the military where servicewomen did not enjoy the same benefits as their male counterparts. However, just like any other constitutional issue that needs the interpretation and determination of the courts, this unwarranted discrimination in the military was bound to change. It was only a matter of time before someone sought the intervention of the courts to address such prejudice. In the early 1970s, Sharron Frontiero, an Air Force Lieutenant, sued Melvin Laird, the then US Secretary of Defense, because her husband could not enjoy benefits associated with dependents in a landmark case called Frontiero v. Richardson. The ruling in favor of Frontiero played a significant role in the enhancement of gender equality in the US. This paper discusses Frontiero v. Richardson by giving a summary of the case, the constitutional issue that the court needed to clarify, the court’s previous ruling in this issue area, and how the case should have been decided based on constitutional precedent.
Brief Summary of the Case
In the 1970s, Air Force Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero sought to have her husband, Joseph Frontiero, enlisted as a dependent and enjoy the associated medical and housing benefits. At the time, for a husband to be eligible for the dependent status, his wife had to apply and prove that he depended on her for over 50 percent of his needs. On the other hand, wives to servicemen qualified automatically as dependents. At the time of the case, Joseph was a full-time student and while his expenses amounted to approximately $354 per month, he only received $205 in veterans benefits (Walters, p. 295). However, Joseph did not meet this criterion, and thus Sharron’s application was denied. Therefore, she sued the then US Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, who was later replaced by Eliot Richardson (Frontiero v. Richardson). The legal issue that the court had to interpret and clarify was whether it was constitutional for servicewomen’s husbands to fail to qualify for spousal benefits, while servicemen’s women were automatically eligible for the same. The appellant argued that it amounted to gender discrimination for the military to continue advancing such prejudiced policy.
Lt. Frontiero sought injunctive and “declaratory relief and back pay, claiming that the dependency classifications operated to deny due process under the Fifth Amendment to married women in the military since they differentiated between similarly situated members of the uniformed services based on sex” (Walters, p. 295). The case was first taken to a federal district court, which ruled in favor of the defendant, the US Secretary of State. The three-judge panel at the district court argued that the statutory classification concerning dependents in the military was not purely based on gender, but also the nature of the relationship between serviceperson and the person listed as a dependent. Therefore, based on the existing law that male dependents could only qualify for spousal benefits if they depended on their wives in the service for over half of their support, Joseph was not eligible for housing and medical benefits. According to this ruling, the court found that the classifications were rational and they served the legislative purpose for which they were designed – economy of public funds and administrative convenience. Therefore, the court determined that while married servicewomen carried the responsibility of proving that their husbands qualified as dependents, the resulting inequality was not invidious discrimination.
As such, the case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. In January 1973, prosecution and defense presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court and on May 14, 1973, a ruling was made. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and this landmark ruling changed the course of gender equality in the US military. In an 8-1 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the fringe benefit scheme in the military that allowed male members to access medical care and housing allowance for their wives irrespective of dependency, but required females to prove that their male dependents deserved such benefits as unconstitutional. In their ruling, the judges observed that the basis that such a scheme promoted administrative convenience and ensured the prudent use of public money did not pass constitutional muster. This scheme amounted to sex-based discrimination against women, thus effectively reversing the ruling by the federal district court.
Brief Background of the Court’s Previous Rulings in this Issue Area
Before Frontiero’s case in 1973, only one other related case had been determined in the Supreme Court – the Reed v. Reed case of 1971. In this case, Cecil and Sally Reed had separated as a married couple and they were contending who would be designated as the administrator of the estate that belonged to their son who had died earlier in their marriage. The available law at the time, based on Idaho Code, stated that males would be preferred to females when it came to matters of designating administrators of estates. Therefore, based on this provision, Cecil was appointed the unopposed administrator. However, Sally’s lawyer appealed the ruling at the Supreme Court, which ruled that the provision that men should be preferred to women as estate administrators solely due to gender was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. The Court noted that according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, it was unconstitutional to give preferential treatment based on sex.
In the ruling, Chief Justice Burger reasoned that to give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex (Reed v. Reed).
Therefore, when making the ruling in Frontiero v. Richardson, the judges quoted the Reed v. Reed case and added that sex is an immutable characteristic that people have no choice over, and thus they cannot make any changes concerning the same.
Deciding the Case
Based on the constitutional precedent set by the Reed v. Reed case, the Frontiero v. Richardson should have been decided as it occurred at the Supreme Court. It had already been established that rulings solely based on gender were unconstitutional. In addition, the existing laws supported such a decision. For instance, in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause had stated categorically that people should not be discriminated against based on their gender. In addition, Congress had shown “an increasing sensitivity to sex-based classifications, citing the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as laws in which discrimination on the basis of sex is explicitly outlawed” (National Constitution Center). Similarly, the Equal Rights Amendment had stated clearly that under the law, all people are equal this status could not be changed or abridged based on gender. Therefore, the court should have ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the classifications in the military concerning benefits and dependents were arbitrary and discriminatory based on gender.
The argument that such classifications sought to promote administrative convenience and ensure the appropriate usage of public money was misplaced. In essence, the scheme was bound to cost the government more money because even women who did not require spousal dependent benefits were automatically qualified without scrutinizing the matter. As such, based on the constitutional precedent set by the Court and the various laws advocating gender equality, I think that the Supreme Court made the right decision in Frontiero v. Richardson.
Conclusion
Frontiero v. Richardson was a landmark case that promoted the quest for gender equality in the US military and society at large. Lieutenant Frontiero wanted her husband to be listed as a dependent because he was a fulltime college student, but the US Secretary of Defense denied such an application. The law stated that males could only be treated as dependents if they relied on their wives for half of their support, but Joseph did not meet this criterion. Frontiero sued and won at the Supreme Court in a ruling delivered on May 14, 1973. The Court made the right ruling based on the available precedence and constitutional provisions on gender equality.
Works Cited
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
National Constitution Center. Frontiero V. Richardson: A Landmark Case for Gender Equality. Constitution Daily, 2017.
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
Walters, Susan Vitullo. “Constitutional Law- Frontiero v. Richardson, Uniform Services Fringe Benefit Statute which Presumes Spouses of Male Members to be Dependent, but Requires Spouses of Female Members to Be Dependent in Fact, is Violative of Due Process.” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, vol. 5, no. 14, 1974, pp. 295-313.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.