To understand the origin of our name, we need to go back in time.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is widely celebrated for her tireless advocacy for gender equality and women's rights. Long before her appointment to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg made a significant impact as an attorney arguing pivotal cases before the highest court in the United States.
One of her first major appearances was in the landmark case of Frontiero v. Richardson in 1973, a case that challenged gender discrimination in the U.S. military. This case became a cornerstone in Ginsburg’s legal career, setting the stage for her future legacy as a champion of equal rights.
The Backstory: Frontiero’s Struggle Against Gender Discrimination
Sharron Frontiero was a lieutenant in the United States Air Force in the early 1970s, married to Joseph Frontiero, a veteran and full-time student. As a service member, Sharron was entitled to various benefits, including housing allowances and medical benefits. However, military policy at the time automatically granted these benefits to the wives of male service members but not to the husbands of female service members.
To qualify for the same benefits as her male colleagues, Sharron had to prove that her husband was financially dependent on her for more than half of his support. This extra burden was not required of male service members whose spouses received benefits without question. The discriminatory policy reflected broader societal assumptions about traditional gender roles, assuming that men were primary breadwinners and women were dependent homemakers.
After the Air Force denied her application for spousal benefits, Frontiero decided to challenge the policy, arguing that it was a clear violation of her right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), became involved.
The Supreme Court Trial: A Bold Argument for Gender Equality
When Frontiero v. Richardson reached the Supreme Court, Ginsburg was not the lead attorney but contributed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the ACLU. Her involvement marked one of her earliest appearances before the Court and showcased her legal prowess in arguing against gender discrimination.
Ginsburg’s brief boldly argued that gender-based classifications, like those faced by Sharron Frontiero, deserved the same heightened scrutiny that the Court applied to cases involving race discrimination. She made a compelling case that laws discriminating based on sex were rooted in outdated stereotypes and cultural biases that harmed both men and women. During oral arguments, Ginsburg emphasized that these laws not only disadvantaged women - branding them inferior to men - but also restricted men by confining them to narrow societal roles.
The argument was revolutionary for its time, suggesting that gender discrimination should be viewed as inherently suspect and subjected to the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Ginsburg’s advocacy pushed the boundaries of the legal framework for gender equality and set the stage for future challenges against discriminatory laws.
The Decision: A Victory for Women’s Rights, But Not Without Limits
In a landmark 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sharron Frontiero, declaring the military’s policy unconstitutional. The plurality opinion, authored by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., agreed with Ginsburg’s argument that sex-based classifications were inherently suspect and should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. Brennan’s opinion recognized that the policy was based on outdated and unsubstantiated stereotypes about gender roles, which had no place in modern law.
However, the ruling did not fully adopt Ginsburg’s argument that sex-based classifications should always receive strict scrutiny. Only four of the justices, including Brennan, agreed with that position. The other justices did not address the scrutiny issue directly, leaving the standard of review for gender discrimination cases unresolved. While the decision was a significant victory, it fell short of establishing the precedent Ginsburg had hoped for regarding the level of scrutiny applied to gender-based laws.
Legacy and Impact: Paving the Way for Future Gender Equality Cases
Frontiero v. Richardson was a crucial early victory in the fight against gender discrimination and a defining moment in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s career. Although the Court did not establish strict scrutiny as the standard for gender-based discrimination, the case signaled a turning point in how the judiciary viewed laws that differentiated based on sex.
Ginsburg’s arguments laid the groundwork for future cases, including Reed v. Reed and Craig v. Boren, which continued to chip away at legal structures that treated men and women unequally. Her work on Frontiero also helped establish her reputation as a brilliant legal strategist and advocate for women’s rights, eventually leading to her appointment to the Supreme Court, where she would continue to fight for gender equality from the bench.
Conclusion
Frontiero v. Richardson was not just a case about military benefits; it was a challenge to deeply ingrained societal norms about gender. Through this case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg introduced the Supreme Court to a vision of gender equality that questioned the very foundations of laws built on sex-based distinctions. Although the decision did not achieve all that Ginsburg hoped, it set in motion a transformation in the Court’s approach to gender discrimination and solidified Ginsburg’s role as a trailblazer for equal rights.
