In Vance v. Bradley (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State, upholding a federal law that required Foreign Service officers to retire at age 60. The plaintiffs, a group of Foreign Service employees, argued that this mandatory retirement age violated their Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law because other federal employees were not subject to such restrictions. However, the court held that there was a rational basis for treating Foreign Service officers differently due to unique demands and stresses associated with overseas service which could potentially affect performance as they aged. Therefore, it did not violate equal protection principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Vance v. Bradley, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the mandatory retirement age of 60 for Foreign Service officers was not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest and thus violated equal protection principles. He contended that there was no evidence showing a decline in performance after reaching this age or proving that older officers were less able to handle physical demands or adapt to new situations than their younger counterparts. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in government policy as military personnel and other civil servants could serve beyond 60 years old without restrictions. Therefore, he believed the law should be subjected to strict scrutiny rather than rational basis review because it involved an important individual interest - employment free from arbitrary governmental interference.