zablocki v. redhail

B2017 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof. Aguiling-Pangalangan | 1 Zablocki v. Redhail Doctrine: Admission to the bar of women is not one of the privileges guaranteed by the 14 th Amendment of the US Constitution. Short version: A Wisconsin statute only allows residents of Wisconsin, who has a minor not in their custody and has an obligation to support it (by court order or judgment), to marry in Wisconsin or anywhere if they can secure the court’s permission by submitting proof of compliance with the obligation and proving that the minor will not likely become the public’s responsibility after. Zablocki contends that the statute impinges on every Wisconsin resident’s right to marry. The Court upheld the District Court’s ruling that the statute was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection). Facts: A Wisconsin statute provides that any resident of Wisconsin who has (i) a minor not in their custody and, (ii) by court order or judgment, are obligated to provide support for that minor, may not marry without court’s permission. o Permission can be secured by submitting the ff: (i) proof of compliance to the obligation and (ii) prove that these children are not likely to become responsibilities of the state later on Thomas Zablocki (appellant), a Wisconsin resident with an illegitimate child whom he ordered to support, was denied a marriage license because he did not obtain the court’s permission. Zablocki filed a civil rights class action suit in the US Eastern District Court of Wisconsin, which claimed that the statute violated the US constitution, particularly the 14 th Amendment DC found the statute unconstitutional and enjoined the enforcement of the statute Issue: Whether or not the Statue violated the 14 th Amendment—YES Held: Yes. Contention US Supreme Court The statute is not unconstitutional. No. The statute impinges upon the fundamental right to marry as guaranteed under the 14 th Amendment. Those who were unable to meet the standards (i.e., the poor or those who are unable to prove that their children will not become state responsibilities later on, both of which Zablocki wanted to represent in the class action suit) to obtain court permission are effectively denied the right to marry guaranteed to all and so violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th

Upload: alexis-elaine-bea

Post on 10-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

zablocki

TRANSCRIPT

B2017 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof. Aguiling-Pangalangan | 1

Zablocki v. Redhail

Doctrine: Admission to the bar of women is not one of the privileges guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Short version:A Wisconsin statute only allows residents of Wisconsin, who has a minor not in their custody and has an obligation to support it (by court order or judgment), to marry in Wisconsin or anywhere if they can secure the court’s permission by submitting proof of compliance with the obligation and proving that the minor will not likely become the public’s responsibility after. Zablocki contends that the statute impinges on every Wisconsin resident’s right to marry. The Court upheld the District Court’s ruling that the statute was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection).

Facts: A Wisconsin statute provides that any resident of Wisconsin who has (i) a minor not in their custody and, (ii) by

court order or judgment, are obligated to provide support for that minor, may not marry without court’s permission.o Permission can be secured by submitting the ff: (i) proof of compliance to the obligation and (ii) prove that

these children are not likely to become responsibilities of the state later on Thomas Zablocki (appellant), a Wisconsin resident with an illegitimate child whom he ordered to support, was

denied a marriage license because he did not obtain the court’s permission. Zablocki filed a civil rights class action suit in the US Eastern District Court of Wisconsin, which claimed that the

statute violated the US constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment DC found the statute unconstitutional and enjoined the enforcement of the statute

Issue: Whether or not the Statue violated the 14th Amendment—YES

Held: Yes.

Contention US Supreme Court The statute is not unconstitutional. No. The statute impinges upon the fundamental right to

marry as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

Those who were unable to meet the standards (i.e., the poor or those who are unable to prove that their children will not become state responsibilities later on, both of which Zablocki wanted to represent in the class action suit) to obtain court permission are effectively denied the right to marry guaranteed to all and so violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

While states do have the power to create laws regarding the prerequisites of marriage, these laws should not interfere with the actual decision to enter into marriage or not.

The statute aims to promote two interests:- Persons with obligations to support their out-of-

custody children can be counseled before being given permission to enter into a new marriage

- The welfare of the out-of-custody children is upheld

There was no provision in the statute that expressly required or provided for any form of counseling.

The state views this as a “collection device” which gives an incentive for parents to actually make support payments to their children. Supreme Court disagrees. First, those who are really unable to pay will just end up not getting court permission to be able to marry while out-of-custody minors still get no support. Second, and more importantly, there are already other statutes presents that promote/require the compliance of parents to pay the support of their out-of-custody child, and they do not impinge on the right to marry.