## Facts

- Eudene Eunique was ordered to pay child support after dissolution of her marriage; the children’s father had custody.
- Eunique did not pay as ordered and accumulated more than $20,000 in arrears by 1998, later rising to roughly $28,000–$30,000.
- She sought a U.S. passport to travel internationally for business and personal reasons.
- Federal child-support enforcement law conditions certain federal funding on state procedures to certify individuals owing more than $5,000 in child-support arrears.
- California adopted the required certification procedure and certified that Eunique owed arrears exceeding $5,000.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) and implementing regulation 22 C.F.R. § 51.70(a)(8), the State Department denied her passport application.
- Eunique sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the statute and regulation were unconstitutional; the district court granted summary judgment to the government.

## Issues

1. Whether denying a passport to a person certified as owing more than $5,000 in child-support arrears violates the constitutional right to international travel.
2. What level of scrutiny applies to this passport restriction, and whether the statute and regulation satisfy that standard.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the government.
- The court held that the challenged passport-denial scheme does not violate the Constitution.
- The court applied rational basis review because the restriction concerned international (not interstate) travel and did not target First Amendment activity.
- The court found the law rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in enforcing child-support obligations and improving collection effectiveness.
- A concurrence agreed with the result while stressing the decision’s limited scope; a dissent would have applied more searching review and questioned the measure’s tailoring and potentially punitive character.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional interest in international travel is subject to greater regulation than interstate travel; not every restriction triggers strict scrutiny.
- Passport restrictions not aimed at suppressing First Amendment activity are generally evaluated under rational basis review.
- A passport-denial condition tied to certified child-support arrears is constitutional if rationally related to legitimate child-support enforcement objectives.
- Conditioning passport issuance on curing or reducing arrears below the statutory threshold supports the conclusion that the measure is regulatory rather than a permanent ban.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the federal statute and regulation requiring passport denial for individuals certified as owing significant child-support arrears, concluding that the resulting limitation on international travel is reviewed under rational basis and is a permissible means of advancing child-support enforcement.


Eunique v. Powell, 302 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2002)