In the case of Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. De Castro (1976), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a provision in the Social Security Act did not violate equal protection under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The provision in question provided higher benefits to women who were dependent on their husbands at time of death than to those who were not so dependent but had been married for 20 years or more before divorce. A divorced woman challenged this rule as discriminatory against her because she was denied increased benefits even though she had been married for over 20 years prior to her divorce. However, the court held that Congress could rationally have decided to provide increased benefits only to those widows and wives who were likely to be financially dependent on their husbands at time of death or retirement due its limited resources.

In the case of Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. De Castro (1976), Justice Brennan dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the Social Security Act's provision denying benefits to a divorced wife unless she was receiving at least half her support from her former husband at the time he became entitled to old-age insurance benefits is unconstitutional sex discrimination under equal protection principles incorporated in Fifth Amendment due process clause. According to him, this requirement imposes an additional burden on women which men do not have to meet - it effectively penalizes a woman for being self-supporting during marriage or after divorce while rewarding those who remain dependent on their husbands. This distinction between self-supporting and dependent wives does not serve any legitimate governmental interest but rather perpetuates traditional stereotypes about women’s dependency upon men.