Zablocki v Redhail

Brief Fact Summary. A Wisconsin Statute forced

individuals to receive court permission in order to
marry if they have a minor issue not in their custody
which they are obligated to pay support for. Appellant
was unable to receive court permission under the
statute and brought suit on behalf of all residents
similarly situated.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a statute significantly
interferes with the exercise of a fundamental
constitutional right, it must be supported by
sufficiently important state interests and closely
tailored to effectuate only those interests. Such
interests are subject to strict scrutiny or critical
examination.
Facts
Wisconsin Statute
Any resident of Wisconsin having a minor
(child) not in custody and under obligation to
support may not marry
Needs permission from the court
o Submits proof of compliance with the
support obligation
o Are not likely to become public charge
Redhail, appellee applied for a marriage
license on Sept 1927. Country Clerk Zablocki
denied application since he has not obtained
permission from the court
Appellee has a child out of wedlock that he
did not satisfy his support obligations and
child has been a public charge since birth.
Redhail filed his complaint to the District
Court with Zablocki named as defendant,
individually and as representative of a class
consisting of all county clerks in the state.
Three court judge challenged the statute
under the Equal Protection Clause and
concluded that strict scrutiny was required
because the classification infringed upon a
fundamental right, the right to marry.
Held the statute invalid and enjoined the
country clerks from enforcing it.
Appellant brought the suit direct to the USC,
claiming that the three-judge court erred.

Issue. Is a Wisconsin statute that provides that
members of a certain class of residents cannot marry,
within the State or elsewhere, without first obtaining
a court order granting permission to marry
constitutional?
Disposition. Affirmed judgement of the lower court.
Ratio.
The statute is unconstitutional because it
significantly interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right and is not supported by
sufficiently important state interests and is
not closely tailored to effectuate only those
interests.
Leading decision of the SC on the right to
marry is Loving v Virginia, where the Court
held that the laws arbitrarily deprived the
couple of a fundamental liberty protected by
the Due Process Clause, the freedom to
marry.
Right to marry is part of the fundamental right
to privacy implicit in the fourteenth
Amendmens Due Process Clause.
o The decision to marry as among the
personal decisions protected by the
right to privacy.
The court employs a critical examination of
the state interests advanced in support of the
statute because the right to marry is of
fundamental importance. Previous court
decisions have confirmed that the right to
marry is protected by the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Although reasonable restrictions that do not
significantly interfere with the right to marry
may be imposed, the present statute
absolutely prevents some in the protected
class from obtaining the required order, and
places sufficient burdens and significant
intrusions on others.
Appellant claims that the statute supports the
States interest in counseling the applicant as
to the need of fulfilling his prior support
obligations and protects the welfare of the
out-of-custody children. The first claim is
faulty because even if counseling is provided
there would be no interest in continuing to
withhold permission to marry after counseling
is completed. The second is faulty for two
reasons. First, if the individual is unable to
meet payments, the statute simply prevents
marriage without providing any money to the
minor children. Second, the State has
numerous other means for extracting the
payments.
There is also suggestion that the statute
prevents applicants from incurring new
support obligations. However, this is under
inclusive because it limits only the new
financial commitments arising out of a
marriage and overinclusive because in many
cases the income from the new spouse may
increase the applicants ability to pay. The
statute may only result in more children being
born out of wedlock.