2023•Unpublished venueRequires access

Frontiero v. Richardson

Roy Onieal

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The case of Frontiero v. Richardson, argued in January of 1973, brought to light a growing problem related to the increasing numbers of female military personnel serving in the armed forces. Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero had sought to have a dependent’s allowance for her husband, something that was automatically allowed for the wife of an active- duty servicemember. For a husband to earn to the dependent’s allowance, the active-duty member had to demonstrate that more than one-half of the spouse’s support came from the pay and allowances of the member of the armed forces. The government argued to the Court that the policy was designed in such a way as to “save money” as it was far more common for women to receive more than one-half of their support from their husband rather than the other way around, and the rule allowed the government to save time by not having to process every dependent claim to prove the one-half dependency rule. The Court disagreed with this position, responding that the statute itself discriminated against women, which violated the due process clause, and thus required the burden to be the same regardless of gender.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The case of Frontiero v. Richardson, argued in January of 1973, brought to light a growing problem related to the increasing numbers of female military personnel serving in the armed forces. Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero had sought to have a dependent’s allowance for her husband, something that was automatically allowed for the wife of an active- duty servicemember. For a husband to earn to the dependent’s allowance, the active-duty member had to demonstrate that more than one-half of the spouse’s support came from the pay and allowances of the member of the armed forces. The government argued to the Court that the policy was designed in such a way as to “save money” as it was far more common for women to receive more than one-half of their support from their husband rather than the other way around, and the rule allowed the government to save time by not having to process every dependent claim to prove the one-half dependency rule. The Court disagreed with this position, responding that the statute itself discriminated against women, which violated the due process clause, and thus required the burden to be the same regardless of gender.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The case of Frontiero v. Richardson, argued in January of 1973, brought to light a growing problem related to the increasing numbers of female military personnel serving in the armed forces. Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero had sought to have a dependent’s allowance for her husband, something that was automatically allowed for the wife of an active- duty servicemember. For a husband to earn to the dependent’s allowance, the active-duty member had to demonstrate that more than one-half of the spouse’s support came from the pay and allowances of the member of the armed forces. The government argued to the Court that the policy was designed in such a way as to “save money” as it was far more common for women to receive more than one-half of their support from their husband rather than the other way around, and the rule allowed the government to save time by not having to process every dependent claim to prove the one-half dependency rule. The Court disagreed with this position, responding that the statute itself discriminated against women, which violated the due process clause, and thus required the burden to be the same regardless of gender.

Key concepts: Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Frontiero v. Richardson — Research Paper | ScholarLens