In the 1983 case of Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Mathews et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to a provision in the Social Security Act that reduced benefits for men who retired before age 65 but not for women who did so. The plaintiffs argued this was gender discrimination violating their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under law. The court agreed with them, finding that although Congress had intended to help women by allowing them earlier access to full benefits due to societal disadvantages they faced, it could not justify discriminating against men in this way. However, instead of ordering an increase in male retirees' benefits or striking down the entire provision as unconstitutional, the court took an unusual step: It declared that while discriminatory provisions were indeed unconstitutional and should be disregarded going forward; however no retroactive payments would be made because doing so would disrupt social security's fiscal balance too much. This ruling is significant as it established precedent regarding how courts handle cases where laws are found discriminatory yet have substantial financial implications if immediately rectified.

In the dissenting opinion for Heckler v. Mathews, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a provision of Social Security law that discriminated based on gender. He argued that this was not only unconstitutional but also contradicted previous court rulings which had struck down similar discriminatory laws. Furthermore, he contended that the Court should have ordered immediate payment of benefits to male claimants rather than allowing Congress time to rectify the situation legislatively. This delay in justice, according to Brennan, would cause unnecessary harm and financial hardship for those affected by this discrimination. He concluded his dissent by expressing concern over what he perceived as an erosion of equal protection principles under law.