The U.S. Supreme Court case Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Ballard in 1974 revolved around a challenge to the constitutionality of a naval regulation that treated male and female officers differently regarding promotions and dismissals based on service time requirements. Lieutenant Commander George C. Ballard Jr., who was involuntarily discharged from the Navy due to not being promoted within a certain timeframe (as per regulations), argued that this rule violated his Fifth Amendment rights as it applied only to men but not women - thus constituting sex discrimination. However, the Supreme Court upheld the regulation by ruling in favor of Leonard H.O Schlesinger, then-Secretary of Defense et al., stating that it did not infringe upon equal protection principles under the Constitution's Due Process Clause because there were inherent differences between men’s and women’s roles in military service at that time; hence different treatment was justified.

In the dissenting opinion for Schlesinger v. Ballard, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing women in the Navy more time to achieve promotion before being discharged was based on an outdated and stereotypical view of gender roles. He contended that this ruling upheld discrimination against men by giving preferential treatment to women, which he believed violated equal protection principles under the Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that there were "inherent differences" between men and women justifying different treatment in terms of service obligations and career advancement opportunities within military services. In his view, such distinctions should be made on individual merit rather than sex-based classifications.