Attorney at Law

Ginsburg argued her first case for the ACLU in 1971. The case is known as Reed v. Reed. (Court cases are referred to by the name of the plaintiff versus [v.] the name of the defendant.) It involved Sally and Cecil Reed, a divorced couple from Idaho.

The Reeds had a son who had died. Both parents wanted to be appointed executor of his estate. (An estate is all the money and property a person owns. The executor is the one who makes sure the money and property are given out according to the person’s wishes.) Idaho law said the father would automatically be the executor because he was a man. Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped Sally Reed bring the case to the Supreme Court.

Ginsburg convinced the justices of the Supreme Court to strike down the law. Why? Because it was arbitrary and did not allow for equal protection according to the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the first time the court eliminated a law because it treated men and women differently.

In 1973, Ginsburg was again arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court. The case is known as Frontiero v. Richardson. Sharron Frontiero was a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. “Richardson” was Elliot Richardson, secretary of defense at the time. In effect, Sharron Frontiero was suing the federal government.

Frontiero believed her husband was entitled to an armed forces dependent’s allowance in the form of medical and housing benefits. Frontiero applied for the allowance, but her application was denied. Why? Because according to the U.S. military, wives of people in the armed services were considered dependents automatically. Husbands were not. To receive the benefits, a husband had to show that he depended on his wife for over half of his support.

Ginsburg convinced a majority of justices that the law was unconstitutional. Why? Because the federal statute called for “dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated.” As a result, the statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and had to change. (The Due Process Clause requires that the federal government gives equal protection under the law – that the law applies to everyone equally.) Through this case, Ginsburg demonstrated that gender discrimination harmed men as well as women.

In 1975, Ginsburg caused the Supreme Court to address inequalities in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Act is a program that provides benefits for different groups of people. One group is people who are 65 or older. Another group is families of workers who have died. The case of Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld is the latter. 

Stephen Wiesenfeld’s wife provided most of the family’s income. In 1972, she died giving birth to their son. This left Wiesenfeld alone to care for and raise the baby. Wiesenfeld applied for Social Security benefits for himself and his son. He was told that his son could receive benefits, but he could not. Why not? Because the Social Security Act provided benefits to both the mother and child when the father died, but only to the child when the mother died. Wiesenfeld sued.

In her argument, Ginsburg referred to the Frontiero case (see above) and to the Fifth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the court agreed. The distinction in the Social Security Act was based on gender alone. As such, it was unconstitutional. Benefits for widowers – men whose wives have died – should be no different from benefits for widows.

According to the Sixth Amendment, people charged with a crime are entitled to a jury trial. A jury is made up of 6–12 people from the state (or district) where the crime was committed. The jurors listen to the facts. Then they decide if the accused person is guilty or not guilty. The jurors are supposed to represent a cross-section of the community.

The case is known as Duren v. Missouri. Here are the facts: In 1975, Billy Duren was convicted of robbery and murder in the state of Missouri. He objected to the conviction because he claimed the jury did not represent a cross-section of the community. Why? Because no women sat on the jury even though more than half of the people in the community were women. And why were there so few women? Because women got an automatic exemption, or release, from jury duty just by asking for it.

In 1978, Ginsburg argued the case on Duren’s behalf. She claimed that automatically releasing women from jury duty violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. All but one of the justices on the Supreme Court agreed. Now, only a few groups of people are exempted from jury duty on a federal case. They include members of the armed forces, firefighters, police officers, and public officials. (Public officials are people working full-time in federal, state, and local government.) Exemptions from state juries are different for different states.