By according differential treatment to male and female members of the uniformed services for the sole purposes of achieving administrative convenience, the statutes are unconstitutionally discriminatory and violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.
Facts: Under a federal statute, a male serviceman may claim his wife as a dependant for benefits without regard to whether she is in fact dependant upon him for any part of her support. But a servicewoman has to actually prove that her husband is dependent upon her for support.
Issue: Does this statute violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment? Holding: Yes
Rationale: Women in our country have suffered from a history of discrimination and prejudice and discrimination still exists in our nation. Furthermore, sex, like race and national origin, is an immutable characteristic. Therefore, classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and deserve the application of the strict scrutiny. According to the Court, the mere administrative convenience, which this statute achieves, is not compelling enough to survive strict scrutiny. Therefore, this statute violates the DPC of the 5th Amendment.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Constitutional Law Cases and are similar to Frontiero v. Richardson Summary. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.