Frontiero v. Richardson
E88590
Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that advanced gender equality by striking down federal benefit rules that discriminated against female military service members.
All labels observed (5)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T752720 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Frontiero v. Richardson Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Frontiero v. Richardson]
-
A.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
C.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Frontiero v. Richardson Target entity description: Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that advanced gender equality by striking down federal benefit rules that discriminated against female military service members.
-
A.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
C.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (53)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
gender equality case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| appliedToStatesOrFederal | federal government ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ military law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1972-01-17 ⓘ |
| citation |
36 L. Ed. 2d 583
ⓘ
411 U.S. 677 ⓘ 93 S. Ct. 1764 ⓘ |
| concurringInJudgmentBy |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ |
| concurringOpinionBy |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1973-05-14 ⓘ |
| defendant |
Elliot L. Richardson
ⓘ
linked to:
Elliot Richardson
|
| defendantOffice |
Secretary of Defense of the United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States Secretary of Defense
|
| didNotParticipate |
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
linked to:
Warren E. Burger
|
| dissentingOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 71-1694 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Sharron A. Frontiero et al. v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al.
ⓘ
linked to:
Frontiero v. Richardson
|
| holding |
Statutory scheme that treated male and female service members differently for spousal benefits violated equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
The federal government may not require female service members to prove their spouses’ dependency while granting male service members automatic dependency status for their wives ⓘ |
| impact | limited the use of sex-based presumptions in federal benefit programs ⓘ |
| joinedByInPlurality |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
equal protection
ⓘ
federal military benefits ⓘ gender discrimination ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| plaintiff |
Joseph Frontiero
ⓘ
Sharron A. Frontiero ⓘ |
| pluralityOpinionBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | binding on all lower federal courts ⓘ |
| rearguedDate | 1972-10-17 ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Craig v. Boren
ⓘ
Reed v. Reed ⓘ United States v. Virginia ⓘ |
| significance |
advanced gender equality in U.S. constitutional law
ⓘ
one of the first Supreme Court cases to apply heightened scrutiny to sex-based classifications ⓘ |
| standardOfReviewDiscussed | strict scrutiny for sex-based classifications ⓘ |
| standardOfReviewOutcome | no single standard of review commanded a majority ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
military spousal benefits
ⓘ
sex-based classifications ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1973 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Frontiero v. Richardson Description of subject: Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that advanced gender equality by striking down federal benefit rules that discriminated against female military service members.
Referenced by (10)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Frontiero v. Richardson
→
fullCaseName
→
Sharron A. Frontiero et al. v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al.
ⓘ
linked to: Frontiero v. Richardson
linked to: Frontiero v. Richardson
linked to: Frontiero v. Richardson
linked to: Frontiero v. Richardson