Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 

Supreme Court of the United States

1978

Chapter

6

Title

Implied Fundamental Rights

Page

902

Topic

Right to marry is fundamental

Quick Notes

The Court invalidated a Wisconsin statute providing that any resident having minor issue NOT in his custody and which he is under an obligation to support by court order may NOT marry without a prior judicial determination that the support obligation has been met, and that the children are NOT then and are NOT likely thereafter to become public charges.

Rule

o         The right to marry is a fundamental right.

State Argues - Protects the welfare of the out-of-custody child.

Court  - Holding

o         The Court found that the statute violated equal protection in that it directly and substantially interfered with the fundamental right to marry without being closely tailored to effectuate the state's interests

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether the right to marry is fundamental interest?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which found in favor of appellees, a class of Wisconsin residents, in holding that the marriage prohibition in Wis. Stat. § 245.10 (1973) violated the equal protection clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Supreme

o         The Court found that the statute violated equal protection in that it directly and substantially interfered with the fundamental right to marry without being closely tailored to effectuate the state's interests. The Court noted that other future financial obligations were not curtailed, only those that might be associated with marriage, and further found that the effect of the statute was that more illegitimate children would be born.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl -   Zablocki

Df -   Redhail

Description

o         The Court invalidated a Wisconsin statute providing that any resident having minor issue NOT in his custody and which he is under an obligation to support by court order may NOT marry without a prior judicial determination that the support obligation has been met, and that the children are NOT then and are NOT likely thereafter to become public charges.

Justice Marshall

o         Held that the statute violated the equal protection clause.

o         The decisions of this court confirm that ht right to marry is of fundamental importance for ALL individuals.

o         It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships.

o         If the right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

Court - absolutely prevented from getting married

o         Some of those in the affected class, like appellee, will never be able to obtain the necessary court order, because they either lack the financial means to meet their support obligations or cannot prove that their children will not become public charges.

o         These persons are absolutely prevented from getting married.

o         Many others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements, will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry.

o         And even those who can be persuaded to meet the statute's requirements suffer a serious intrusion into their freedom of choice in an area in which we have held such freedom to be fundamental

Court - Strict Scrutiny

o         When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

State Argues - Protects the welfare of the out-of-custody child.

Court - This "collection device" rationale cannot justify the statute's broad infringement on the right to marry.

o         First, with respect to individuals who are unable to meet the statutory requirements, the statute merely prevents the applicant from getting married, without delivering any money at all into the hands of the applicant's prior children.

o         More importantly, regardless of the applicant's ability or willingness to meet the statutory requirements, the State already has numerous other means for exacting compliance with support obligations, means that are at least as effective as the instant statute's and yet do not impinge upon the right to marry.

Concurrence - Justice Stewart

o         I cannot join the opinion of the Court. To hold, as the Court does, that the Wisconsin statute violates the Equal Protection Clause seems to me to misconceive the meaning of that constitutional guarantee.

Not invidious discrimination (EPC), but unwarranted encroachment (DPC)

o         The problem in this case is not one of discriminatory classifications, but of unwarranted encroachment upon a constitutionally protected freedom.

o         I think that the Wisconsin statute is unconstitutional because it exceeds the bounds of permissible state regulation of marriage, and invades the sphere of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Concurrence - Justice Powell

o         The Due Process Clause requires a showing of justification "when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements" in a manner which is contrary to deeply rooted traditions.

o         Does not pass muster under either the EPC or the DPC.

Concurrence - Justice Stevens

o         Under this statute, a person's economic status may determine his eligibility to enter into a lawful marriage.

o         A noncustodial parent whose children are "public charges" may not marry even if he has met his court-ordered obligations.

o         Thus, within the class of parents who have fulfilled their court-ordered obligations, the rich may marry and the poor may not.

o         This type of statutory discrimination is, I believe, totally unprecedented, as well as inconsistent with our tradition of administering justice equally to the rich and to the poor.

DISSENT - Justice Rehnquist

o         The statute so viewed is permissible exercise of the States power to regulate family life and to assure the support of a minor child.

Rules

Class Notes