Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1973 to 1980

Schlesinger v. Ballard - Significance, Lieutenant Ballard Receives A Mandatory Discharge, Frontiero And Reed Offer A Guide--and A Contrast

court quarterly appellant william

Appellant

James R. Schlesinger, U.S. Secretary of Defense

Appellee

Robert C. Ballard

Appellant's Claim

That a rule establishing different guidelines regarding mandatory discharge for male and female officers in the U.S. Navy did not constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Chief Lawyer for Appellant

Harriet S. Shapiro

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Charles R. Khoury, Jr.

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court)

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

15 January 1975

Decision

That the differing classifications regarding rules for discharge and promotion of males and females are based in rationality; and that in exercising its broad constitutional mandate in making these classifications, Congress did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Related Cases

  • Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
  • Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
  • Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351 (1974).
  • Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975).
  • Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
  • Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U.S. 1306 (1980).

Further Readings

  • Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1997.
  • Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
  • Witt, Elder. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Supreme Court, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1990.
Schlesinger v. Holtzman - Significance, A Unique Series Of Events, The Court Defers Action Again, Impact [next] [back] Schick v. Reed - Significance, The Lower Court Rulings, The President Can Commute With Conditions, Furman V. Georgia Did Not Apply

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or