In the case of Frontiero et vir v. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al., 1972, Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force claimed that she was being discriminated against based on her gender. The issue arose when she applied for housing and medical benefits for her husband who was a student and financially dependent on her. According to military policy at that time, men could claim their wives as dependents and receive benefits automatically but women had to prove that they provided more than half of their husbands' support. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Frontiero stating this policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment which guarantees equal protection under law without discrimination based on sex. This landmark decision marked an important step towards gender equality within federal laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Frontiero v. Richardson, Justices Powell and Blackmun argued that while they agreed with the majority's desire to eliminate sex discrimination, they disagreed with using strict scrutiny as a standard of review for gender-based classifications. They believed this approach was too extreme and could potentially lead to unforeseen consequences in future cases involving different forms of discrimination. Instead, they suggested that such issues should be addressed by Congress through legislation rather than by judicial interpretation of the Constitution. The justices also expressed concern about overstepping their role within the separation of powers framework by making decisions better left to legislators who are more directly accountable to voters.