## Facts

- Wisconsin law barred a resident with minor children not in the resident’s custody, and subject to a child-support order, from marrying without a court order.
- The court order could issue only if the applicant proved (1) compliance with support obligations and (2) the children were not then, and not likely thereafter to become, public charges.
- Roger Redhail was adjudicated the father of a nonmarital child and ordered to pay monthly support; he was indigent and accumulated substantial arrears.
- By the time he applied for a marriage license, his child was being supported by the State as a public charge.
- The Milwaukee County Clerk, Thomas Zablocki, refused to issue Redhail a marriage license because Redhail lacked the required court order.
- Redhail brought a § 1983 class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the statute; a three-judge federal district court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement.
- The Supreme Court affirmed on direct review.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning a marriage license for certain noncustodial parents on court approval, effectively unavailable unless support is current and children will not become public charges, violates the Equal Protection Clause.
2. What constitutional standard applies when a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of the fundamental right to marry.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the injunction and held the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Because the statute significantly interfered with the right to marry by imposing substantial obstacles and, in some cases, an absolute bar, heightened scrutiny applied.
- The State’s asserted interests (child support enforcement, preventing children from becoming public charges, and counseling) were not advanced through means closely fitted to those interests.
- The statute was underinclusive and overinclusive and prevented marriage without ensuring payment of support; less burdensome enforcement tools were available.

## Legal Principles

- Marriage is a fundamental right for equal protection purposes when state action substantially burdens the ability to marry.
- A law that significantly interferes with a fundamental right is valid only if supported by sufficiently important governmental interests and closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.
- Classifications that impose special barriers on access to marriage are subject to heightened review even when framed as domestic-relations regulation.
- Conditioning access to a fundamental right on meeting financial prerequisites, without a close fit to the asserted objectives and without effective advancement of those objectives, violates equal protection.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Wisconsin’s marriage-license restriction for certain noncustodial parents because it imposed a substantial, sometimes absolute, barrier to marriage and was not closely tailored to the State’s interests in child support and preventing public dependency.


Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)