The case of Frontiero v. Richardson, argued in January of 1973, brought to light a form of discrimination in the armed forces highlighted by the increasing numbers of female military personnel. Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero had sought to have a dependent’s allowance for her husband, something that was automatically allowed for the wife of an active-duty servicemember. For a husband to qualify for the dependent’s allowance, the active-duty member had to demonstrate that more than one-half of the spouse’s support came from the pay and allowances of the member of the armed forces. The government argued to the Court that the policy was designed in such a way as to “save money” as it was far more common for women to receive more than one-half of their support from their husband rather than the other way around, and the rule allowed the government to save time by not having to process every dependent claim to prove the one-half dependency rule. The Court disagreed with this position, responding that the statute itself discriminated against women, which violated the due process clause, and thus required the burden to be the same regardless of gender.