Rutgers Law School professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, along with Melvin Wulf, took on Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld after several unfavorable Supreme Court decisions on gender discrimination cases.

Ginsburg made the argument that Section 402(g) of the Social Security Act discriminated against Stephen Wiesenfeld by not providing him with the same survivors' benefits as it would to a widow.

They declared that Section 402(g) of the Social Security Act was unconstitutional on the grounds that the gender based distinctions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Brennan ruled that "such a gender-based generalization cannot suffice to justify the denigration...of women who do work and whose earnings contribute significantly to their families' support."

[3] Though Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld was considered a victory for feminists, the court still was unclear on distinguishing between sex-based classifications that were damaging to women and those that nurtured sexual equality.