Bradwell appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected her right to pursue a lawful profession like any other citizen, regardless of her marital status.

[6] Lastly, Bradwell argued that the Illinois Court decision based on feme covert was outdated and that her marital status did not correlate with her ability to practice law.

[7] The ability to set criteria for those wishing to enter the legal profession was squarely within state authority, and the federal government had no basis for interfering in this matter.

[7] The Court pointed to the recently decided Slaughterhouse Cases to support its position, which clarified the limited scope of federal authority over state-regulated privileges.

He argued that it was not a fundamental right or privilege for women to be admitted to every profession, particularly those requiring special qualifications and responsibilities such as the practice of law.

[7] Justice Bradley's decision was based on the perception of traditional gender roles, yet he also relied on the precedent of the limited scope federal authority had over state-regulated privileges.

This decision reflects how societal norms regarding gender roles influenced judicial reasoning, reinforcing the view that women were naturally unfit for participation in certain aspects of public life, including the practice of law.

[14] Therefore, the state currently needs to demonstrate an actual rational basis for arguing in favor of gender-based discrimination instead of relying on traditional norms.

The evolution from Bradwell v. Illinois to these later rulings reflects broader shifts in American constitutional interpretation, moving from an era of restrictive gender-based legal doctrines to one focused on expanding equality.

Today, the principles underlying Bradwell have been completely overturned, and women are no longer barred from full participation in the professional workforce, including the legal profession.