Frontiero Vs Richardson Case Study

Frontiero v. Richardson
In his opinion in the 1973 case Frontiero v. Richardson, Justice William Brennan stated,“Our nation had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination, rationalized by an attitude of “romantic paternalism” which, in practical effect, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” The Justice felt discrimination against women in America has been passed off ignorantly as romantic or reasonable. In 1973, Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, was treated unequally when she was not provided the same benefits as a man would, for her husband and dependant, Joseph Frontiero. As a woman, she had to prove her husband’s dependence for one half of his support. Male lieutenants were not required to do so for their wives, but instead merely had to claim their dependence. Frontiero took her case to lower courts and originally lost. She later requested an appeal and, her case reached to the Supreme Court. The statute was suspected to be unconstitutional under a 4 justice opinion written by Justice William Brennan. The statute in
Richardson case, the Supreme Court was forced to weigh the budget of the Air Force and the needs of women service members. The US government had argued that not imposing the one-half dependency rule on the female spouses of male officers would be an administrative savings.This was because female spouses were traditionally dependant on their husbands, so it would be simpler to provide the benefits to them without question. Justice William Rehnquist dissented, citing the reasoning of the lower court to show that the administrative savings from not requiring men to justify dependent benefit eligibility provided a rational basis for the law. The Court then argued that the one-half dependency rule would cost less to impose on both male and female officers since the Air Force would not be required to pay wives who were not dependant on their husbands for one half of their