In the case of Califano v. Goldfarb in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Social Security Act was unconstitutional because it discriminated against widowers based on gender. The provision stated that surviving wives could receive benefits from their deceased husband's earnings without proving dependency, while surviving husbands had to prove they were receiving at least half their support from their wives before death to be eligible for benefits. Leon Goldfarb challenged this after being denied survivor’s benefits following his wife's death as he did not meet the dependency requirement set by law. The court held in a 5-4 decision that such differential treatment constituted an arbitrary gender-based classification violating "the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment". This ruling marked one of many during this era where laws establishing different rules for men and women came under scrutiny and were often struck down as discriminatory.

In the dissenting opinion for Califano v. Goldfarb, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to strike down a provision of the Social Security Act as discriminatory against men was incorrect. He contended that Congress had a rational basis for treating male and female survivors differently due to societal norms at the time which typically saw men as primary breadwinners and women as dependents. Therefore, it made sense to require proof from widowers (but not widows) that they were dependent on their spouse's income before granting survivor benefits. Rehnquist also disagreed with applying strict scrutiny - usually reserved for suspect classifications like race - in this case involving gender discrimination, arguing instead for a more deferential standard of review given Congress' broad power in economic matters.