In the case of Califano v. Boles, 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision in the Social Security Act was unconstitutional as it discriminated against men based on gender. The provision allowed widows but not widowers to collect special benefits while caring for minor children unless they could prove actual dependency on their deceased wives' earnings at time of death or disability onset. Three male plaintiffs challenged this rule after being denied benefits following their wives’ deaths because they were unable to demonstrate such dependency. The court held that this requirement violated equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment by creating an unjustifiable disparate treatment between similarly situated men and women without any substantial government interest served by such discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Califano v. Boles, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both legislative intent and previous court rulings. He contended that Congress intended to provide benefits to all dependent children of deceased wage earners, regardless of their legitimacy status. The majority's interpretation of the Social Security Act would deny these benefits to illegitimate children who were not living with or receiving support from their father at his time of death - a requirement not imposed on legitimate children. Furthermore, he pointed out that this ruling contradicted earlier decisions which held it unconstitutional to discriminate against illegitimate children in distributing benefits upon a parent’s death (Levy v Louisiana). Lastly, he criticized the Court for failing to apply strict scrutiny when reviewing classifications based on illegitimacy as they had done previously (Jimenez v Weinberger), arguing such classifications should be presumed unconstitutional unless shown otherwise.