[1] Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law.

Although he pointed out that women had begun to "achieve the virtues that men have long claimed as their prerogatives," the Constitution "does not require legislatures to reflect sociological insight, or shifting social standards.

"[4] He went on to explain that the Constitution does not require situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as if they were the same by citing Tigner v. State of Texas.

Justice Rutledge presented the opinion by saying, "This inevitable result of the classification belies the assumption that the statute was motivated by a legislative solicitude for the moral and physical well-being of women who, but for the law, would be employed as barmaids.

Since there could be no other conceivable justification for such discrimination against women owners of liquor establishments, the statute should be held invalid as a denial of equal protection.

"[6] Although the Michigan law was deemed discriminatory towards women, the case made a precedent for the Supreme Court to look more closely at legislature with discrimination based on gender.