Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made history as an adamant defender against gender discrimination. Before becoming the second female Supreme Court Justice, Ginsburg argued six gender discrimination cases in front of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), and proceded to win five of them. She has gone down in history as one of the most well-known feminists of her time. Her legacy continues to inspire women around the world to continue her work against gender discrimination.  

In 1971, during Reed v. Reed, Ginsburg wrote the plaintiff’s brief based on the 14th amendment. This court case involved Richard Lynn Reed, a minor, who died. His mother, Sally, who was separated from his father, Cecil Reed, wanted to be the administrator of his estate. Sally had filed a petition prior to Cecil. However, Cecil’s application was approved right away because of an Idaho statute stipulating that “males must be preferred to females” when there was more than one qualified person to administer the estate to. In the brief, Ginsburg argued against the Idaho statute, saying that it went against the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which, according to the Legal Information Institute states that “the governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.” The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the Idaho statute was unconstitutional. Reed v. Reed was the first time that the Court had used the Equal Protection Clause to protect against gender based discrimination. 

In 1973, Ginsburg argued her first case before the Supreme Court. In Frontiero v. Richardson, Sharron Frontiero in the U.S. Air Force had applied for military spouse benefits on behalf of her dependent husband. She was then told that she would have to provide proof of his dependency, even though men who applied for benefits on behalf of their wives did not have to provide such proof. Ginsburg argued for strict scrutiny to be applied to cases where there was gender discirmintation. “Why did the framers of the 14th Amendment regard racial [discrimination] as odious? Because a person’s skin color bears no necessary relationship to ability. Similarly…a person’s sex bears no necessary relationship to ability.” The Court ruled 8-1 that the benefits policy was unconstitutional and that, despite Ginsburg’s argument for strict scrutiny to be applicable in cases where gender discimination is present, instead argued that because of the United States’ past history of gender discrimination, the Supreme Court should use intermediate scrutiny in cases where the law makes a distinction on the basis of gender.  Frontiero v. Richardson was a milestone case and a major win for women’s rights activists. 

In another gender discrimination case that came up to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg continued the fight against gender discrimination. In 1975, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld made its way to the Supreme Court and resulted in a unanimous decision. Ginsburg argued against  a section of the Social Security Act that barred widowed fathers from collecting the benefits that a widowed wife would collect. Ginsburg argued that this regulation discriminated against women who worked, especially those whose social security taxes amassed fewer family benefits than those same taxes paid by men. Ginsburg also claimed that this law barred men the same chance as women to personally take care of their children. In this court case, Ginsburg, in an attempt to win male judges over to her side, illustrated in this case that men were the victims of gender discrimination as well. Ginsburg knew that this would help in the fight against gender discrimination because if she won the male judges over, then it would be easier to the argue against gender discimination when it is against women. 

Ginsburg also fought for the rights of pregnant women. In General Electric Co. v. Gilbert in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not the same as discrimination based on sex. The Court determined that discrimination based on pregnancy did not treat women in a different way than men, but rather treated pregnant and nonpregnant women differently. Ginsburg disagreed with this opinion and co-authored a column for the New York Times with Susan Deller Ross, a WRP staff attorney, for the New York Times to protest this decision. Ginsburg and Ross continued this protest by lobbying, reporting, and testifying in Congress. This culminated in the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, a change to Title VII that said that discrimination based on pregnancy is discrimination based on sex and is therefore unlawful. 

After Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent her career as a lawyer fighting against gender discrimination, she became a Supreme Court Justice and made history on the highest court in the land. In 1990, the Virginia Military Institute, one of the first state military colleges funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, had a policy that only allowed male students to be admitted into the Institute. When a female high-school student sought admission to VMI, she was at first denied by the institute and had to file a complaint with the Attorney General. She claimed that the VMI’s only male admission policy went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state of Virginia argued that the Virginia Military Institute training techniques were not compatible with women. It also claimed that single-sex education produced significant educational benefits and that these benefits would be unable to be provided to women without changes that would inherently destroy VMI’s program. 

The Federal District Court agreed with VMI. However, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Virginia did not provide that VMI furthered any state policy. The appellate court also claimed that it was against the state’s announced devotion to an education system built on non-discrimination and diversity. As a corrective measure, Virginia suggested a counterpart women’s program, which would be named the Women’s Institute of Leadership. The 4th Circuit agreed to this suggestion, claiming that it was, by and large, the same as the men’s program. The Attorney General disagreed with this, however, and appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme reached a decision and Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority decision. The Supreme Court ruled that VMI’s male-only admissions policy went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority rule stated that under the equivalent protection review, groups wanting to defend gender-based government action must produce “exceedingly persuasive justification” for it. The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that Virginia did not produce sufficient justification for gender-based government action.

In 2013, Texas tried to implement what is known as TRAP laws, laws that would create significant barriers to performing abortions at abortion clinics. The Supreme Court, ruling 5-3, voted against many big components of these TRAP laws or H.B. 2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, specifically, was very vocal about her opinion. She said “it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law would make it harder for a woman to have an abortion.” Justice Ginsburg explained that laws like H.B. 2. do next to nothing for women’s health, but in reality, just serve as obstacles to abortion. Ginsburg stated that laws like these will not survive judicial review. In this case, Ginsburg was extremely adamant in protecting the women’s right to an abortion. 

The next year, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, (2014), SCOTUS, in a 5-4 ruling, decided that private companies are allowed to deny their employee’s insurance coverage for birth control. They based this decision on the Affordable Care Act’s precautionary health provisions that are architected to widen affordable care services for women in the U.S. In Ginsburg’s dissent, she pointed out that the owners of Hobby Lobby who are against contraceptives may decline contraceptives for themselves and they would be in their right to do so. However, they would not be in their right to impose this choice on someone else who supports contraceptives. 

Ginsburg was a key figure in the fight against gender discrimination. Throughout her life, she made it one of her life’s missions to fight against sexism and make sure that long after she was gone, women would still have the opportunities that she fought for. She will go down in history as one of the most influential feminists in the world. Ruth Bader Ginsburg will continue to be a role model and an inspiration to women everywhere.