InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Ballard

The Court upheld a federal statute granting female Naval officers four more years of commissioned service before mandatory discharge than male Naval officers.

419 U.S. 498 · No. 73-776 · 1974 term · Burger Court

Decided Jan 15, 1975 · argued Oct 15, 1974

Civil rights · Sex discrimination

Majority opinion: Potter Stewart

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the California Southern U.S. District Court, and its own ruling ends the case.

Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld a federal statute granting female Naval officers four more years of commissioned service before mandatory discharge than male Naval officers. A group of naval officers who were discharged prior to their tenth year of commissioned service, as a result of not being promoted, received a lower rate of separation pay than female officers who were permitted to remain in service longer and receive three additional promotion board opportunities. As a result, the female officers who failed to be promoted received a higher rate of separation pay over their male counterparts. Ballard, a male officer who was passed over earned $15,000 in separation pay, but if he had been a similarly situated female officer, he argued that he would have received over $200,000 in separation pay. Ballard had also served as an enlisted sailor, but his eighteen years of total service was not enough to earn a military retirement. Although Justice Harry Blackmun's clerk pointed this out in a memorandum, Blackmun responded "We are first of all, dealing with the military and not with some civilian set-up, and I suppose this adds a protective factor to the government's position."

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1974 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBrennanMarshallStewartWhiteBlackmunPowellBurgerRehnquist

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al.Department or Secretary of Defense
Respondent
BallardMilitary personnel, or dependent
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fifth Amendment (due process)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jan 15, 1975DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. won.
  2. Oct 15, 1974ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the California Southern U.S. District Court: reversed.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

44 other argued cases since 1946 on sex discrimination, newest first.

  1. West Virginia v. B.P.J.146 S. Ct. 2356Jun 30, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2356Civil rights6–36–3 band

  2. United States v. Skrmetti145 S. Ct. 1816Jun 18, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1816Civil rights6–36–3 band

  3. 303 Creative LLC v. ElenisLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press600 U.S. 570Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 570Civil rights6–36–3 band

  4. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania141 S. Ct. 1868Jun 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1868Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  5. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission138 S. Ct. 1719Jun 4, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1719Civil rights7–27–2 band

  6. Lisa Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee et al.555 U.S. 246Jan 21, 2009 · 555 U.S. 246Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  7. Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education544 U.S. 167Mar 29, 2005 · 544 U.S. 167Civil rights5–45–4 band
  8. Tuan Anh Nguyen and Joseph Boulais v. Immigration and Naturalization Service533 U.S. 53Jun 11, 2001 · 533 U.S. 53Civil rights5–45–4 band

  9. Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. v. James DaleLandmark · Freedom of association530 U.S. 640Jun 28, 2000 · 530 U.S. 640Civil rights5–45–4 band

  10. Aurelia Davis, As Next Friend of Lashonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education et al.526 U.S. 629May 24, 1999 · 526 U.S. 629Civil rights5–45–4 band

  11. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. R. M. Smith525 U.S. 459Feb 23, 1999 · 525 U.S. 459Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  12. Alida Star Gebser and Alida Jean McCullough v. Lago Vista Independent School District524 U.S. 274Jun 22, 1998 · 524 U.S. 274Civil rights5–45–4 band

  13. United States v. Virginia et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex518 U.S. 515Jun 26, 1996 · 518 U.S. 515Civil rights7–18–1 band

  14. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex511 U.S. 127Apr 19, 1994 · 511 U.S. 127Civil rights6–36–3 band

  15. Christine Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools and William Prescott.503 U.S. 60Feb 26, 1992 · 503 U.S. 60Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. New York State Club Association, Inc. v. City of New York et al.487 U.S. 1Jun 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  17. Board of Directors of Rotary International et al. v. Rotary Club of Duarte et al.481 U.S. 537May 4, 1987 · 481 U.S. 537Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  18. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Mathews et al.465 U.S. 728Mar 5, 1984 · 465 U.S. 728Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  19. Grove City College et al. v. Bell, Secretary of Education, et al.465 U.S. 555Feb 28, 1984 · 465 U.S. 555Civil rights7–27–2 band

  20. Lehr v. Robertson et al.463 U.S. 248Jun 27, 1983 · 463 U.S. 248Civil rights6–36–3 band

  21. Mississippi University for Women et al. v. HoganLandmark · Discrimination based on sex458 U.S. 718Jul 1, 1982 · 458 U.S. 718Civil rights5–45–4 band

  22. Rostker, Director of Selective Service v. Goldberg et al.453 U.S. 57Jun 25, 1981 · 453 U.S. 57Civil rights6–36–3 band

  23. Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (California, Real Party in Interest)450 U.S. 464Mar 23, 1981 · 450 U.S. 464Civil rights5–45–4 band

  24. Kirchberg v. Feenstra et al.450 U.S. 455Mar 23, 1981 · 450 U.S. 455Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  25. Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co. et al.446 U.S. 142Apr 22, 1980 · 446 U.S. 142Civil rights8–18–1 band
  26. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts et al. v. Feeney442 U.S. 256Jun 5, 1979 · 442 U.S. 256Civil rights7–27–2 band
  27. Caban v. Mohammed et ux.441 U.S. 380Apr 24, 1979 · 441 U.S. 380Civil rights5–45–4 band

  28. Parham v. Hughes441 U.S. 347Apr 24, 1979 · 441 U.S. 347Civil rights5–45–4 band

  29. Orr v. Orr440 U.S. 268Mar 5, 1979 · 440 U.S. 268Civil rights6–36–3 band

  30. Duren v. Missouri439 U.S. 357Jan 9, 1979 · 439 U.S. 357Civil rights8–18–1 band
  31. Quilloin v. Walcott et vir434 U.S. 246Jan 10, 1978 · 434 U.S. 246Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  32. Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia et al.430 U.S. 703Apr 19, 1977 · 430 U.S. 703Civil rights4–45–4 band
  33. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Goldfarb430 U.S. 199Mar 2, 1977 · 430 U.S. 199Civil rights5–45–4 band

  34. Craig et al. v. Boren, Governor of Oklahoma, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex429 U.S. 190Dec 20, 1976 · 429 U.S. 190Civil rights7–27–2 band

  35. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. de Castro429 U.S. 181Dec 13, 1976 · 429 U.S. 181Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  36. Stanton v. Stanton421 U.S. 7Apr 15, 1975 · 421 U.S. 7Civil rights8–18–1 band

  37. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Wiesenfeld420 U.S. 636Mar 19, 1975 · 420 U.S. 636Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  38. Taylor v. LouisianaLandmark · Discrimination based on sex419 U.S. 522Jan 21, 1975 · 419 U.S. 522Civil rights8–18–1 band

  39. Kahn v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.416 U.S. 351Apr 24, 1974 · 416 U.S. 351Civil rights6–36–3 band

  40. Frontiero et vir v. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex411 U.S. 677May 14, 1973 · 411 U.S. 677Civil rights8–18–1 band

  41. Stanley v. IllinoisLandmark · Discrimination based on sex405 U.S. 645Apr 3, 1972 · 405 U.S. 645Civil rights5–27–2 band

  42. Reed v. Reed, AdministratorLandmark · Discrimination based on sex404 U.S. 71Nov 22, 1971 · 404 U.S. 71Civil rights7–0Unanimous band

  43. Hoyt v. Florida368 U.S. 57Nov 20, 1961 · 368 U.S. 57Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  44. Ballard et al. v. United States329 U.S. 187Dec 9, 1946 · 329 U.S. 187Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.