## Facts

- Connecticut required would-be divorce plaintiffs to pay filing fees and service-of-process costs (about $60 total) before a divorce action could be initiated.
- Gladys Boddie and other indigent welfare recipients sought divorces but were unable to pay the required fees and service costs.
- Connecticut provided no nonjudicial method to dissolve a marriage; divorce could be obtained only through a court proceeding.
- The plaintiffs filed a federal class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that applying the fee requirements to indigent divorce plaintiffs violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- A three-judge federal district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, upholding the fee requirement even when it barred indigents from filing.
- The plaintiffs appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a state that exclusively controls the legal means of divorce to deny indigent persons access to divorce proceedings solely because they cannot pay mandatory court filing and service fees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal.
- The Court held that due process prohibits Connecticut from denying indigent persons, acting in good faith, access to divorce courts solely because they cannot pay mandatory fees and costs.
- The fee-and-cost scheme was unconstitutional as applied to indigent would-be divorce plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- Due process generally requires that, absent a sufficiently weighty state justification, persons required to resolve claims of rights and duties through the judicial process must receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- When a state monopolizes the only effective forum for changing a fundamental legal status (here, dissolution of marriage), denial of entry to that forum based solely on inability to pay is equivalent to denial of a hearing.
- Although a state may impose reasonable court fees to support administration of justice and deter frivolous filings, it may not use fees to impose a total barrier to court access for indigents where no alternative mechanism exists.
- A court-fee regime may be unconstitutional as applied, even if the general authority to impose fees is valid.

## Conclusion

Because Connecticut made the courts the exclusive means to dissolve a marriage, due process required that indigent spouses seeking divorce in good faith be given access to the divorce process without being barred by mandatory filing and service fees they could not pay.


Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)