Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schlesinger Vs. Ballard

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 15, 1975

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

37 entries 6 linked 31 unlinked
Show
  1. Frontiero Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 14, 1973
    Relied / Followed
  2. Reed Vs. Reed US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1971
  3. Bolling Vs. Sharpe US Supreme Court · May 17, 1954
  4. Kahn Vs. Shevin US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1974
  5. Orloff Vs. Willoughby US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  6. Eisenstadt Vs. Baird US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1972
  7. U.S. 498 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  8. U.S. 498 (1975) Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  9. on sex in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. A three-judge District Court, relying on Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  10. F.Supp. 167. Thereafter, the case came before the three-judge court for decision on the merits. Relying upon Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  11. that Congress has acted unconstitutionally, appellee relies primarily upon the Court's recent decisions in Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  12. U. S. 677 , and Reed v. Reed
    Search
  13. Id. at 411 U. S. 690 -691. The case of Reed v. Reed
    Search
  14. H.R.Rep. No. 216, supra, at 5. Cf. Kahn v. Shevin
    Search
  15. Toth v. Quarles
    Search
  16. U. S. 11 , 350 U. S. 17 . See also Orloff v. Willoughby
    Search
  17. U. S. 497 , 347 U. S. 499 . See also Schneider v. Rusk
    Search
  18. legislative classification that is premised solely upon gender must be subjected to close judicial scrutiny. Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  19. readiness Page 419 U. S. 520 of our Armed Forces for battle cannot settle the issue before us. As Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  20. exercised our imaginations to conceive of possible rational justifications for statutory classifications, see McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  21. declined to manufacture justifications in order to save an apparently invalid statutory classification. Cf. James v. Strange
    Search
  22. Weber v. Aetna
    Search
  23. interests to determine whether they were, in fact, the legislative purpose of a statutory classification, Eisenstadt v. Baird
    Search
  24. s stated purposes when these purposes are clearly set out in the statute or its legislative history. Johnson v. Robison
    Search
  25. In neither Reed v. Reed
    Search
  26. U. S. 71 (1971), nor Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  27. system can distinguish Reed or Frontiero. See also James v. Strange
    Search
  28. U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  29. and Reed v. Reed
    Search
  30. of Reed v. Reed
    Search
  31. Cf. Kahn v. Shevin
    Search
  32. As Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  33. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  34. Cf. James v. Strange
    Search
  35. Johnson v. Robison
    Search
  36. James v. Strange
    Search
  37. Schneider v. Rusk
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial