Facts
- Federal military benefit statutes granted a male service member automatic “dependent” status for his wife, without proof of actual dependency.
- The same statutes required a female service member to prove her husband was dependent on her for more than half of his support to receive comparable benefits.
- Sharron A. Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant, applied for increased quarters allowance and medical and dental benefits for her husband, Joseph Frontiero.
- The application was denied because Joseph did not meet the statutory dependency threshold applicable to husbands of servicewomen.
- The Frontieros sued federal officials, alleging unconstitutional sex-based discrimination under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- A three-judge federal district court upheld the statutory scheme; the Frontieros took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether federal statutes that automatically treat wives of male service members as dependents, but require husbands of female service members to prove actual dependency, violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by creating an impermissible sex-based classification.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and held the statutory scheme unconstitutional.
- A plurality concluded that sex-based classifications are inherently suspect and require strict scrutiny; the government’s justification of administrative convenience was insufficient.
- A concurring Justice found the scheme unconstitutional as “invidious discrimination” under existing equal-protection precedent.
- Other concurring Justices agreed the statutes were unconstitutional but declined to decide whether sex is a suspect classification, citing the pendency of the Equal Rights Amendment.
- One Justice dissented and would have upheld the statutes.
Legal Principles
- The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause imposes equal-protection-type limits on federal laws that classify individuals and distribute benefits on discriminatory terms.
- Sex-based statutory classifications that impose unequal burdens require strong justification; mere administrative convenience cannot justify unequal treatment where it rests on sex-based generalizations.
- A Court majority may invalidate a sex-based federal classification under the Fifth Amendment even without agreement on whether strict scrutiny formally applies.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated federal military benefit provisions that favored male service members by presuming wives to be dependents while forcing servicewomen to prove their husbands’ dependency, holding that the sex-based disparity violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection component.