In Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri law was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law in question provided for workers' compensation benefits to widows of deceased employees without requiring proof of dependency, but required widowers to prove they were dependent on their wives’ earnings at time of death or injury in order to receive similar benefits. Robert Wengler, whose wife died from an occupational disease, challenged this provision after his claim for compensation was denied due to lack of proven dependency. The court held that such gender-based distinction did not serve any legitimate state interest and thus constituted sex discrimination under the Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's view that Missouri's workers' compensation statute was discriminatory and violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that there were rational reasons behind treating widows and widowers differently, such as historical data showing women are more likely to be financially dependent on their husbands than vice versa. Therefore, he believed it was not irrational or arbitrary for a state to provide automatic benefits to widows while requiring proof of dependency from widowers. Furthermore, he contended that this case did not involve absolute denial of benefits but rather different evidentiary requirements which should have been subjected to less strict scrutiny by the court. In his view, overturning long-standing state laws based on modern perceptions of gender roles could lead to judicial overreach.