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
- 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.
- 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.