In the case of Webb v. Webb (1980), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a Kentucky statute that allowed women, but not men, to seek alimony was constitutional. The appellant, Mr. Webb argued that this law violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated on basis of gender. However, in its decision, the court upheld Kentucky's alimony law as constitutional and did not find it discriminatory against men. The court reasoned that historically women have been economically dependent on their husbands due to societal roles and expectations which often limit their earning capacity even after divorce; hence such laws were necessary for protecting them financially post-divorce. Furthermore, they stated these laws do not prevent men from seeking support if they can prove financial need or dependency during marriage. This ruling affirmed states' right to enact legislation addressing specific social issues based on historical context and societal norms without necessarily violating equal protection rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Webb v. Webb case argued that the majority's decision to deny Mrs. Webb her claim on Mr. Webb's military retirement pay was incorrect and unjust, as it failed to recognize this income as a shared marital asset accumulated during their marriage. The dissent pointed out that many states had already recognized such pensions as joint property subject to division upon divorce, and criticized the majority for not following suit, arguing that they were ignoring economic realities of modern marriages where both spouses contribute towards accumulating assets over time - even if one spouse’s contribution is non-monetary (such as homemaking or child-rearing). They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on women who often are economically disadvantaged after divorces due to factors like wage gaps and career interruptions for family care responsibilities.