In the 1948 case, Goesaert et al. v. Cleary et al., Members of the Liquor Control Commission of Michigan, Valentine Goesaert and other female bartenders challenged a Michigan law that prohibited women from being licensed as bartenders unless they were "the wife or daughter of the male owner" of a bar. The plaintiffs argued this law violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated on basis of sex. However, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this statute stating that it was within state's police power to regulate liquor traffic by restricting bartender licenses to men only (unless related to owner). The court reasoned that such regulation could be justified if aimed at protecting public morals and welfare even though it involved gender-based discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Goeasert v. Cleary, Justice Rutledge argued that Michigan's law prohibiting women from being bartenders unless their father or husband owned the establishment was unconstitutional. He believed it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it discriminated based on gender without a rational basis. Rutledge contended that there was no evidence to support claims that this law protected public morals or welfare and pointed out inconsistencies in its application, such as allowing women to serve alcohol in other capacities like waitressing. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues' reliance on societal norms and traditions which perpetuated discrimination against women rather than adhering strictly to constitutional principles of equality under law.