Kahn v. Shevin

Three justices dissented in this case. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, objected to the majority decision on the grounds that the same ends could have been better served by less sweeping legislation. A state may enact gender-specific legislation, Brennan wrote, but "only when the State bears the burden of demonstrating that the challenged legislation serves overriding or compelling interests that cannot be achieved either by a more carefully tailored legislative classification or by the use of feasible, less drastic means." In the view of these two justices, Florida would have served its widows equally well by drafting a more narrow law that denied exemptions to financially secure widows.

A separate dissent came from Justice White, who found no compelling reason to confer state benefits upon women rather than men. "[T]here are many rich widows who need no largess from the State . . . " White wrote. "At the same time, there are many widowers who are needy and who are in more desperate financial straits and have less access to the job market than many widows. Yet none of them qualifies for the exemption." White held the Florida statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause. While gender-based classifications had a place in the law, in his view they "require more justification than the State has offered" in this case.