zablocki
redhail
argued
october
decided
january
wisconsin
statute
providing
resident
state
minor
issue
custody
obligation
support
order
judgment
may
marry
without
approval
order
granted
absent
showing
support
obligation
met
children
covered
support
order
likely
thereafter
become
public
charges
held
violate
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
pp
since
right
marry
fundamental
importance
loving
virginia
statutory
classification
involved
significantly
interferes
exercise
right
critical
examination
state
interests
advanced
support
classification
required
massachusetts
board
retirement
murgia
pp
state
interests
assertedly
served
challenged
statute
unnecessarily
impinge
right
marry
statute
designed
furnish
opportunity
counsel
persons
prior
obligations
obligations
incurred
neither
expressly
requires
counselling
provides
automatic
approval
counseling
completed
statute
justified
encouraging
applicant
support
children
proceeding
state
already
possesses
numerous
means
exacting
compliance
support
obligations
merely
prevents
applicant
getting
married
without
ensuring
support
applicant
prior
children
though
suggested
statute
protects
ability
marriage
applicants
meet
prior
support
obligations
new
ones
incurred
statute
underinclusive
limit
new
financial
commitments
arising
contemplated
marriage
overinclusive
since
new
spouse
may
better
applicant
financial
situation
pp
marshall
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
white
blackmun
joined
burger
filed
concurring
opinion
post
stewart
post
powell
post
stevens
post
filed
opinions
concurring
judgment
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
ward
johnson
assistant
attorney
general
wisconsin
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
bronson
la
follette
attorney
general
robert
russell
john
devitt
robert
blondis
argued
cause
filed
briefs
appellee
justice
marshall
delivered
opinion
issue
case
constitutionality
wisconsin
statute
stat
provides
members
certain
class
wisconsin
residents
may
marry
within
state
elsewhere
without
first
obtaining
order
granting
permission
marry
class
defined
statute
include
wisconsin
resident
minor
issue
custody
obligation
support
order
judgment
statute
specifies
permission
granted
unless
marriage
applicant
submits
proof
compliance
support
obligation
addition
demonstrates
children
covered
support
order
likely
thereafter
become
public
charges
marriage
license
may
lawfully
issued
wisconsin
person
covered
statute
except
upon
order
marriage
entered
without
compliance
declared
void
persons
acquiring
marriage
licenses
violation
section
subject
criminal
penalties
denied
marriage
license
failure
comply
appellee
brought
class
action
challenging
statute
violative
equal
protection
due
process
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
seeking
declaratory
injunctive
relief
district
eastern
district
wisconsin
held
statute
unconstitutional
equal
protection
clause
enjoined
enforcement
supp
noted
probable
jurisdiction
affirm
appellee
redhail
wisconsin
resident
terms
unable
enter
lawful
marriage
wisconsin
elsewhere
long
maintains
wisconsin
residency
facts
according
stipulation
filed
parties
district
follows
january
appellee
minor
high
school
student
paternity
action
instituted
milwaukee
county
alleging
father
baby
girl
born
wedlock
july
appeared
admitted
child
father
entered
order
may
adjudging
appellee
father
ordering
pay
per
month
support
child
reached
years
age
may
august
appellee
unemployed
indigent
consequently
unable
make
support
payments
september
appellee
filed
application
marriage
license
appellant
zablocki
county
clerk
milwaukee
county
days
later
application
denied
sole
ground
appellee
obtained
order
granting
permission
marry
required
although
appellee
petition
state
thereafter
stipulated
able
satisfy
either
statutory
prerequisites
order
granting
permission
marry
first
satisfied
support
obligations
illegitimate
child
december
arrearage
excess
second
child
public
charge
since
birth
receiving
benefits
aid
families
dependent
children
program
stipulated
child
benefit
payments
public
charge
even
appellee
current
support
payments
december
appellee
filed
complaint
district
behalf
class
wisconsin
residents
refused
marriage
license
pursuant
one
county
clerks
wisconsin
zablocki
named
defendant
individually
representative
class
consisting
county
clerks
state
complaint
alleged
among
things
appellee
woman
desired
marry
expecting
child
march
wished
lawfully
married
time
statute
attacked
grounds
deprived
appellee
class
sought
represent
equal
protection
due
process
rights
secured
first
fifth
ninth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
convened
pursuant
appellee
moved
certification
plaintiff
defendant
classes
named
complaint
order
dated
february
plaintiff
class
certified
fed
rule
civ
proc
parties
filed
stipulation
facts
briefs
merits
oral
argument
heard
district
june
representative
wisconsin
attorney
general
office
participating
addition
counsel
parties
handed
unanimous
decision
august
ruled
first
required
abstain
decision
principles
set
forth
huffman
pursue
younger
harris
since
pending
proceeding
frustrated
declaratory
injunctive
relief
requested
second
held
class
county
clerks
wisconsin
proper
defendant
class
rules
neither
rule
due
process
required
prejudgment
notice
members
plaintiff
defendant
class
merits
panel
analyzed
challenged
statute
equal
protection
clause
concluded
strict
scrutiny
required
classification
created
statute
infringed
upon
fundamental
right
right
marry
proceeded
evaluate
interests
advanced
state
justify
statute
finding
classification
necessary
achievement
interests
held
statute
invalid
enjoined
county
clerks
enforcing
appellant
brought
direct
appeal
pursuant
claiming
erred
finding
invalid
equal
protection
clause
appellee
defends
lower
equal
protection
holding
alternative
urges
affirmance
district
judgment
ground
statute
satisfy
requirements
substantive
due
process
agree
district
statute
violates
equal
protection
clause
ii
evaluating
equal
protection
clause
must
first
determine
burden
justification
classification
created
thereby
must
meet
looking
nature
classification
individual
interests
affected
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
since
past
decisions
make
clear
right
marry
fundamental
importance
since
classification
issue
significantly
interferes
exercise
right
believe
critical
examination
state
interests
advanced
support
classification
required
massachusetts
board
retirement
murgia
see
san
antonio
independent
school
dist
rodriguez
leading
decision
right
marry
loving
virginia
case
interracial
couple
convicted
violating
virginia
miscegenation
laws
challenged
statutory
scheme
equal
protection
due
process
grounds
opinion
rested
solely
ground
statutes
discriminated
basis
race
violation
equal
protection
clause
went
hold
laws
arbitrarily
deprived
couple
fundamental
liberty
protected
due
process
clause
freedom
marry
language
latter
point
bears
repeating
freedom
marry
long
recognized
one
vital
personal
rights
essential
orderly
pursuit
happiness
free
men
marriage
one
basic
civil
rights
man
fundamental
existence
survival
quoting
skinner
oklahoma
ex
rel
williamson
recent
decisions
established
right
marry
part
fundamental
right
privacy
implicit
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
griswold
connecticut
observed
deal
right
privacy
older
bill
rights
older
political
parties
older
school
system
marriage
coming
together
better
worse
hopefully
enduring
intimate
degree
sacred
association
promotes
way
life
causes
harmony
living
political
faiths
bilateral
loyalty
commercial
social
projects
yet
association
noble
purpose
involved
prior
decisions
cases
subsequent
griswold
loving
routinely
categorized
decision
marry
among
personal
decisions
protected
right
privacy
see
generally
whalen
roe
nn
example
last
term
carey
population
services
international
declared
outer
limits
right
personal
privacy
marked
clear
among
decisions
individual
may
make
without
unjustified
government
interference
personal
decisions
relating
marriage
loving
virginia
procreation
skinner
oklahoma
ex
rel
williamson
contraception
eisenstadt
baird
white
concurring
result
family
relationships
prince
massachusetts
child
rearing
education
pierce
society
sisters
meyer
nebraska
quoting
roe
wade
surprising
decision
marry
placed
level
importance
decisions
relating
procreation
childbirth
child
rearing
family
relationships
facts
case
illustrate
make
little
sense
recognize
right
privacy
respect
matters
family
life
respect
decision
enter
relationship
foundation
family
society
woman
appellee
desired
marry
fundamental
right
seek
abortion
expected
child
see
roe
wade
supra
bring
child
life
suffer
myriad
social
economic
disabilities
status
illegitimacy
brings
see
trimble
gordon
weber
aetna
casualty
surety
surely
decision
marry
raise
child
traditional
family
setting
must
receive
equivalent
protection
appellee
right
procreate
means
anything
must
imply
right
enter
relationship
state
wisconsin
allows
sexual
relations
legally
take
place
reaffirming
fundamental
character
right
marry
mean
suggest
every
state
regulation
relates
way
incidents
prerequisites
marriage
must
subjected
rigorous
scrutiny
contrary
reasonable
regulations
significantly
interfere
decisions
enter
marital
relationship
may
legitimately
imposed
see
califano
jobst
ante
infra
statutory
classification
issue
however
clearly
interfere
directly
substantially
right
marry
challenged
statute
wisconsin
resident
affected
class
may
marry
wisconsin
elsewhere
without
order
marriages
contracted
violation
statute
void
punishable
criminal
offenses
affected
class
like
appellee
never
able
obtain
necessary
order
either
lack
financial
means
meet
support
obligations
prove
children
become
public
charges
persons
absolutely
prevented
getting
married
many
others
able
theory
satisfy
statute
requirements
sufficiently
burdened
effect
coerced
forgoing
right
marry
even
persuaded
meet
statute
requirements
suffer
serious
intrusion
freedom
choice
area
held
freedom
fundamental
iii
statutory
classification
significantly
interferes
exercise
fundamental
right
upheld
unless
supported
sufficiently
important
state
interests
closely
tailored
effectuate
interests
see
carey
population
services
international
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
san
antonio
independent
school
dist
rodriguez
bullock
carter
appellant
asserts
two
interests
served
challenged
statute
proceeding
furnishes
opportunity
counsel
applicant
necessity
fulfilling
prior
support
obligations
welfare
children
protected
may
accept
present
purposes
legitimate
substantial
interests
since
means
selected
state
achieving
interests
unnecessarily
impinge
right
marry
statute
sustained
evidence
challenged
statute
originally
introduced
wisconsin
legislature
intended
merely
establish
mechanism
whereby
persons
support
obligations
children
prior
marriages
counseled
entered
new
marital
relationships
incurred
support
obligations
permission
marry
required
apparently
permission
automatically
granted
counseling
completed
statute
actually
enacted
however
expressly
require
provide
counseling
whatsoever
automatic
granting
permission
marry
thus
hardly
justified
means
ensuring
counseling
persons
within
coverage
even
assuming
counseling
take
place
fact
evidence
record
interest
obviously
support
withholding
permission
marry
counseling
completed
regard
safeguarding
welfare
children
appellant
brief
make
clear
connection
state
interest
statute
requirements
argument
appellant
counsel
suggested
since
permission
marry
granted
unless
applicant
shows
satisfied
support
obligations
prior
children
children
become
public
charges
statute
provides
incentive
applicant
make
support
payments
children
tr
oral
arg
collection
device
rationale
justify
statute
broad
infringement
right
marry
first
respect
individuals
unable
meet
statutory
requirements
statute
merely
prevents
applicant
getting
married
without
delivering
money
hands
applicant
prior
children
importantly
regardless
applicant
ability
willingness
meet
statutory
requirements
state
already
numerous
means
exacting
compliance
support
obligations
means
least
effective
instant
statute
yet
impinge
upon
right
marry
wisconsin
law
whether
children
prior
marriage
born
wedlock
support
obligations
may
enforced
directly
via
wage
assignments
civil
contempt
proceedings
criminal
penalties
state
believes
parents
children
custody
responsible
ensuring
children
become
public
charges
interest
achieved
adjusting
criteria
used
determining
amounts
paid
support
orders
also
suggestion
protects
ability
marriage
applicants
meet
support
obligations
prior
children
preventing
applicants
incurring
new
support
obligations
challenged
provisions
grossly
underinclusive
respect
purpose
since
limit
way
new
financial
commitments
applicant
arising
contemplated
marriage
statutory
classification
substantially
overinclusive
well
given
possibility
new
spouse
actually
better
applicant
financial
situation
contributing
income
job
otherwise
statute
many
cases
may
prevent
affected
individuals
improving
ability
satisfy
prior
support
obligations
although
true
applicant
incur
support
obligations
children
born
contemplated
marriage
preventing
marriage
may
result
children
born
wedlock
fact
occurred
appellee
case
since
support
obligation
whether
child
born
wedlock
net
result
preventing
marriage
simply
illegitimate
children
statutory
classification
created
thus
justified
interests
advanced
support
judgment
district
accordingly
affirmed
terry
rose
filed
brief
wisconsin
civil
liberties
union
foundation
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
footnotes
wisconsin
resident
minor
issue
custody
obligation
support
order
judgment
may
marry
state
elsewhere
without
order
either
state
granted
judgment
support
order
divorce
jurisdiction
county
state
minor
issue
resides
marriage
license
application
made
marriage
license
shall
issued
person
except
upon
order
within
days
permission
sought
verified
petition
special
proceeding
shall
direct
hearing
held
matter
allow
said
person
submit
proof
compliance
prior
obligation
order
shall
granted
hearing
held
unless
parties
intended
marriage
appear
unless
person
agency
institution
welfare
department
entity
legal
actual
custody
minor
issue
given
notice
proceeding
personal
service
copy
petition
least
days
prior
hearing
except
appearance
notice
may
waived
upon
good
cause
shown
minor
issue
prior
marriage
unless
notice
thereof
given
family
commissioner
county
permission
sought
shall
attend
hearing
family
commissioner
granted
divorce
judgment
divorce
judgment
granted
foreign
service
shall
made
clerk
upon
hearing
said
person
submits
proof
makes
showing
children
likely
thereafter
become
public
charges
shall
grant
order
copy
shall
filed
prior
proceeding
divorce
action
person
state
affected
thereby
otherwise
permission
license
shall
withheld
proof
submitted
showing
made
order
withholding
permission
appealable
order
hearing
section
may
waived
satisfied
examination
records
case
family
support
records
office
clerk
well
disclosure
said
person
financial
resources
latter
complied
prior
orders
judgments
affecting
minor
children
also
shown
children
likely
thereafter
become
public
charges
county
clerk
state
shall
issue
license
person
required
comply
section
unless
certified
copy
order
permitting
marriage
filed
said
county
clerk
wisconsin
resident
support
obligations
minor
stated
sub
wishes
marry
another
state
must
prior
marriage
obtain
permission
sub
except
hearing
ordered
held
party
proposed
marriage
domiciled
another
state
need
present
hearing
party
present
hearing
judge
shall
within
days
send
copy
order
permission
marry
stating
obligations
support
party
present
section
shall
extraterritorial
effect
outside
state
providing
marriages
circumvent
wisconsin
law
void
applicable
hereto
marriage
contracted
without
compliance
section
compliance
required
shall
void
whether
entered
state
elsewhere
record
indicate
whether
appellee
obtained
employment
subsequent
august
wisconsin
law
arriage
may
validly
solemnized
contracted
within
state
license
issued
therefor
stat
exception
relevant
license
must
obtained
county
clerk
county
one
parties
resided
least
days
immediately
prior
making
application
therefor
order
defined
plaintiff
class
follows
wisconsin
residents
minor
issue
custody
obligation
support
minor
issue
order
judgment
county
clerk
refused
issue
marriage
license
without
order
pursuant
stats
supp
possibility
abstention
might
required
decision
huffman
pursue
raised
district
sua
sponte
argument
appellee
subsequently
filed
memorandum
contending
abstention
required
appellant
submit
response
appellant
argues
appeal
district
failed
consider
doctrine
federalism
set
forth
younger
huffman
according
appellant
proper
consideration
doctrine
led
district
require
appellee
bring
suit
first
state
courts
order
give
courts
initial
opportunity
pass
constitutional
attack
agree
first
district
correct
finding
huffman
younger
inapplicable
since
pending
proceeding
appellee
challenged
statute
see
wooley
maynard
second
ambiguities
statute
state
courts
resolve
absent
issues
state
law
might
affect
posture
federal
constitutional
claims
uniformly
held
individuals
seeking
relief
need
present
federal
constitutional
claims
state
coming
federal
forum
see
wisconsin
constantineau
zwickler
koota
see
also
huffman
pursue
appellant
also
contends
appeal
first
time
district
abstained
regard
independence
state
governments
carrying
domestic
policy
brief
appellant
citing
burford
sun
oil
unlike
burford
however
case
involve
complex
issues
state
law
resolution
disruptive
state
efforts
establish
coherent
policy
respect
matter
substantial
public
concern
colorado
river
water
conservation
dist
course
doctrine
requiring
abstention
merely
resolution
federal
question
may
result
overturning
state
policy
appellant
appealed
district
finding
defendant
class
satisfied
requirements
rules
definition
class
include
county
clerks
wisconsin
requirement
appellant
send
copy
judgment
county
clerks
issues
therefore
us
appellant
claim
appeal
due
process
required
prejudgment
notice
members
defendant
class
judgment
binding
issue
framed
however
perceive
appellant
personal
stake
outcome
baker
carr
therefore
hold
appellant
lacks
standing
raise
claim
appellant
bound
regardless
concluded
judgment
binding
effect
absent
members
defendant
class
appellant
asserted
injured
way
maintenance
suit
defendant
class
action
indeed
appellant
never
filed
brief
district
opposition
defendant
class
despite
invited
see
supra
notice
issue
briefed
first
time
appeal
wisconsin
attorney
general
took
lead
counsel
appellant
circumstances
absent
class
members
must
content
assert
due
process
rights
collateral
attack
otherwise
see
hansberry
lee
advisory
committee
notes
amendment
rule
citing
restatement
judgments
comment
note
event
light
disposition
case
recent
revision
wisconsin
family
code
see
infra
question
binding
effect
absent
members
may
wholly
academic
found
additional
justification
applying
strict
scrutiny
fact
statute
discriminates
basis
wealth
absolutely
denying
individuals
opportunity
marry
lack
sufficient
financial
resources
make
showing
required
statute
citing
san
antonio
independent
school
dist
rodriguez
counsel
appellee
informed
us
oral
argument
appellee
married
illinois
time
argument
merits
district
prior
judgment
tr
oral
arg
development
way
moots
issues
us
first
appellee
individual
claim
unaffected
since
still
wisconsin
resident
illinois
marriage
consequently
void
provisions
see
state
mueller
extraterritorial
effect
respect
wisconsin
residents
second
regardless
current
status
appellee
individual
claim
dispute
statute
constitutionality
remains
live
respect
members
class
appellee
represents
illinois
marriage
took
place
well
class
certified
see
franks
bowman
transp
sosna
iowa
argument
acting
governor
wisconsin
signed
law
comprehensive
revision
state
marriage
laws
effective
february
laws
ch
legis
serv
west
revision
added
new
section
appears
somewhat
narrower
version
enactment
new
provision
also
moot
inquiry
constitutionality
terms
new
section
shall
enforced
provisions
utilization
procedures
thereunder
stayed
enjoined
order
read
somewhat
unusual
proviso
explained
us
argument
representative
wisconsin
attorney
general
tr
oral
arg
new
section
meant
serve
stopgap
time
enforcement
barred
order
vacate
district
injunction
appeal
go
back
full
force
effect
accordingly
dispute
validity
quite
live
express
judgment
constitutionality
new
section
support
fundamental
importance
marriage
found
decisions
dealing
rights
access
courts
civil
cases
boddie
connecticut
wrote
marriage
involves
interests
basic
importance
society
held
filing
fees
divorce
actions
violated
due
process
rights
indigents
unable
pay
fees
two
years
later
kras
concluded
filing
fees
bankruptcy
actions
deprive
indigents
due
process
equal
protection
boddie
distinguished
several
grounds
including
following
denial
access
judicial
forum
boddie
touched
directly
marital
relationship
associational
interests
surround
establishment
dissolution
relationship
many
occasions
recognized
fundamental
importance
interests
constitution
see
example
loving
virginia
wisconsin
punishes
fornication
criminal
offense
whoever
sexual
intercourse
person
spouse
may
fined
imprisoned
months
stat
directness
substantiality
interference
freedom
marry
distinguish
instant
case
califano
jobst
ante
jobst
upheld
sections
social
security
act
providing
inter
alia
termination
dependent
child
benefits
upon
marriage
individual
entitled
benefits
act
opinion
expressly
noted
rule
terminating
benefits
upon
marriage
attempt
interfere
individual
freedom
make
decision
important
marriage
ante
social
security
provisions
placed
direct
legal
obstacle
path
persons
desiring
get
married
notwithstanding
brother
rehnquist
imaginative
recasting
case
see
dissenting
opinion
post
evidence
laws
significantly
discouraged
let
alone
made
practically
impossible
marriages
indeed
provisions
deterred
individual
challenged
statute
getting
married
even
though
wife
disabled
see
califano
jobst
ante
see
also
ante
availability
federal
benefits
total
payments
jobsts
marriage
per
month
less
jobst
child
benefits
terminated
see
wisconsin
legislative
council
notes
reprinted
following
stat
ann
supp
wisconsin
legislative
council
general
report
see
ibid
although
statute
originally
enacted
provide
automatic
granting
permission
allow
grant
permission
found
good
cause
even
absence
showing
support
obligations
met
laws
ch
provision
deleted
requirement
showing
children
become
public
charges
added
laws
ch
wisconsin
statutory
provisions
civil
enforcement
support
obligations
children
prior
marriage
include
wage
assignment
civil
contempt
support
obligations
arising
paternity
actions
may
civilly
enforced
wage
assignment
civil
contempt
see
also
addition
failure
meet
support
obligations
may
result
conviction
felony
offense
abandonment
minor
child
misdemeanor
failure
support
minor
child
chief
justice
burger
concurring
join
justice
marshall
opinion
deference
justice
stevens
opinion
persuade
analysis
opinion
significant
way
inconsistent
unanimous
holding
califano
jobst
ante
unlike
intentional
substantial
interference
right
marry
effected
wisconsin
statute
issue
social
security
act
provisions
challenged
jobst
constitute
attempt
interfere
individual
freedom
make
decision
important
marriage
califano
jobst
ante
indirect
impact
decision
understanding
join
opinion
today
justice
stewart
concurring
judgment
join
opinion
hold
wisconsin
statute
violates
equal
protection
clause
seems
misconceive
meaning
constitutional
guarantee
equal
protection
clause
deals
substantive
rights
freedoms
invidiously
discriminatory
classifications
san
antonio
independent
school
dist
rodriguez
concurring
opinion
paradigm
violation
course
classification
race
mclaughlin
florida
loving
virginia
concurring
opinion
like
almost
law
wisconsin
statute
us
affects
people
affect
others
say
thereby
creates
classifications
equal
protection
sense
strikes
little
short
fantasy
problem
case
one
discriminatory
classifications
unwarranted
encroachment
upon
constitutionally
protected
freedom
think
wisconsin
statute
unconstitutional
exceeds
bounds
permissible
state
regulation
marriage
invades
sphere
liberty
protected
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
agree
right
marry
constitutional
sense
right
accurately
privilege
federal
system
peculiarly
one
defined
limited
state
law
sosna
iowa
state
may
significantly
interfere
decisions
enter
marital
relationship
may
many
circumstances
absolutely
prohibit
surely
example
state
may
legitimately
say
one
marry
sibling
one
marry
least
years
old
one
marry
without
first
passing
examination
venereal
disease
one
marry
living
husband
wife
surely
regulating
intimate
human
relationship
marriage
limit
beyond
state
may
constitutionally
go
constitution
specifically
mention
freedom
marry
settled
liberty
protected
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
embraces
freedoms
expressly
enumerated
bill
rights
see
schware
board
bar
examiners
pierce
society
sisters
meyer
nebraska
cf
shapiro
thompson
guest
aptheker
secretary
state
kent
dulles
truax
raich
decisions
made
clear
freedom
personal
choice
matters
marriage
family
life
one
liberties
protected
cleveland
board
education
lafleur
roe
wade
loving
virginia
supra
griswold
connecticut
pierce
society
sisters
supra
meyer
nebraska
supra
see
also
prince
massachusetts
skinner
oklahoma
ex
rel
williamson
evident
wisconsin
law
us
directly
abridges
freedom
question
whether
state
interests
support
abridgment
overcome
substantive
protections
constitution
wisconsin
law
makes
permission
marry
turn
payment
money
support
one
children
previous
marriage
liaison
show
kept
support
obligations
children
become
wards
state
altogether
prohibited
marrying
wisconsin
said
one
marry
paid
fines
assessed
traffic
violations
suppose
constitutional
invalidity
law
apparent
state
interest
certainly
legitimate
interest
disproportionate
unrelated
restriction
liberty
imposed
state
invalidity
law
us
hardly
clear
restriction
liberty
seems
largely
imposed
abused
liberty
past
looked
one
way
law
may
seen
simply
collection
device
additional
used
wisconsin
enforcing
parental
support
obligations
since
operates
denying
permission
marry
also
clearly
reflects
legislative
judgment
person
permitted
incur
new
family
financial
obligations
fulfilled
already
insofar
judgment
paternalistic
rather
punitive
manifests
concern
economic
prospective
marital
household
interests
legitimate
concerns
state
follow
justify
absolute
deprivation
benefits
legal
marriage
several
occasions
held
person
inability
pay
money
demanded
state
justify
total
deprivation
constitutionally
protected
liberty
boddie
connecticut
held
state
legitimate
purposes
collecting
filing
fees
divorce
actions
insufficient
due
process
clause
deprive
indigent
access
courts
access
necessary
dissolve
marital
relationship
tate
short
williams
illinois
held
indigent
offender
term
imprisonment
increased
liberty
curtailed
simply
reason
inability
pay
fine
principle
cases
applies
well
wisconsin
law
makes
allowance
truly
indigent
state
flatly
denies
marriage
license
anyone
afford
fulfill
support
obligations
keep
children
becoming
wards
state
may
assume
state
legitimate
interests
collecting
delinquent
support
payments
reducing
welfare
load
may
also
assume
applied
afford
meet
statute
financial
requirements
choose
law
advances
state
objectives
ways
superior
means
available
state
fact
remains
people
simply
afford
meet
statute
financial
requirements
deny
people
permission
marry
penalizes
failing
insofar
applies
indigents
state
law
irrational
means
achieving
objectives
state
directed
either
indigent
delinquent
parent
law
substantially
rational
viewed
means
assuring
financial
viability
future
marriages
context
reflects
plausible
judgment
fulfilled
financial
obligations
kept
children
welfare
rolls
past
likely
encounter
similar
difficulties
future
state
legitimate
concern
financial
soundness
prospective
marriages
must
stop
short
telling
people
may
marry
poor
might
persist
financial
irresponsibility
invasion
constitutionally
protected
liberty
chance
erroneous
prediction
simply
great
legislative
judgment
alien
traditions
offensive
shared
notions
fairness
offends
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
ii
opinion
half
century
ago
justice
holmes
described
equal
protection
claim
usual
last
resort
constitutional
arguments
buck
bell
today
equal
protection
doctrine
become
chief
instrument
invalidating
state
laws
yet
case
like
one
doctrine
substantive
due
process
another
name
although
purports
examine
bases
legislative
classifications
compare
treatment
legislatively
defined
groups
actually
erects
substantive
limitations
may
thus
effect
decision
case
require
wisconsin
draw
legislative
classifications
greater
precision
afford
similar
treatment
similarly
situated
persons
rather
message
opinion
wisconsin
may
use
control
marriage
achieve
objectives
state
statute
restrictions
basic
governmental
power
heart
substantive
due
process
understandably
reluctant
rely
substantive
due
process
see
roe
wade
concurring
opinion
embrace
essence
doctrine
guise
equal
protection
serves
purpose
obfuscation
ouched
slogans
ringing
phrases
equal
protection
doctrine
shifts
focus
judicial
inquiry
away
proper
concerns
include
nature
individual
interest
affected
extent
affected
rationality
connection
legislative
means
purpose
existence
alternative
means
effectuating
purpose
degree
confidence
may
statute
reflects
legislative
concern
purpose
legitimately
support
means
chosen
williams
illinois
supra
harlan
concurring
result
conceal
appropriate
inquiry
invites
mechanical
thoughtless
application
misfocused
doctrine
bring
open
forces
healthy
responsible
recognition
nature
purpose
extreme
power
wield
invalidating
state
law
name
constitution
invalidate
pro
tanto
process
representative
democracy
one
sovereign
union
see
hohfeld
fundamental
legal
conceptions
applied
judicial
reasoning
yale
see
ante
justice
powell
concurring
judgment
concur
judgment
wisconsin
restrictions
exclusive
means
creating
marital
bond
erected
stat
meet
applicable
constitutional
standards
write
separately
majority
rationale
sweeps
broadly
area
traditionally
subject
pervasive
state
regulation
apparently
subject
state
regulation
directly
substantially
interferes
decision
marry
traditional
family
setting
critical
examination
compelling
state
interest
analysis
presumably
reasonable
regulations
significantly
interfere
decisions
enter
marital
relationship
may
legitimately
imposed
ante
present
however
principled
means
distinguishing
two
types
regulations
since
state
regulation
area
typically
takes
form
prerequisite
barrier
marriage
divorce
degree
direct
interference
decision
marry
divorce
unlikely
provide
either
guidance
state
legislatures
basis
judicial
oversight
several
occasions
acknowledged
importance
marriage
relationship
maintenance
values
essential
organized
society
long
recognized
freedom
personal
choice
matters
marriage
family
life
one
liberties
protected
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
cleveland
board
education
lafleur
decisions
indicate
guarantee
personal
privacy
autonomy
secured
unjustifiable
governmental
interference
due
process
clause
extension
activities
relating
marriage
loving
virginia
roe
wade
outer
limits
aspect
privacy
marked
clear
among
decisions
individual
may
make
without
unjustified
government
interference
personal
decisions
relating
marriage
carey
population
services
international
thus
fair
say
right
marital
familial
privacy
places
substantive
limits
regulatory
power
government
yet
hold
regulation
touching
upon
marriage
implicates
fundamental
right
triggering
exacting
judicial
scrutiny
principal
authority
cited
majority
loving
virginia
although
loving
speaks
freedom
marry
one
vital
personal
rights
essential
orderly
pursuit
happiness
free
men
focused
miscegenation
statute
chief
justice
warren
stated
marriage
one
basic
civil
rights
man
fundamental
existence
survival
skinner
oklahoma
see
also
maynard
hill
deny
fundamental
freedom
unsupportable
basis
racial
classifications
embodied
statutes
classifications
directly
subversive
principle
equality
heart
fourteenth
amendment
surely
deprive
state
citizens
liberty
without
due
process
law
fourteenth
amendment
requires
freedom
choice
marry
restricted
invidious
racial
discriminations
constitution
freedom
marry
marry
person
another
race
resides
individual
infringed
state
view
analysis
must
start
recognition
domestic
relations
area
long
regarded
virtually
exclusive
province
sosna
iowa
marriage
relation
traditionally
subject
regulation
initially
ecclesiastical
authorities
later
secular
state
early
pennoyer
neff
noted
state
absolute
right
prescribe
conditions
upon
marriage
relation
citizens
shall
created
causes
may
dissolved
state
representing
collective
expression
moral
aspirations
undeniable
interest
ensuring
rules
domestic
relations
reflect
widely
held
values
people
marriage
creating
important
relation
life
morals
civilization
people
institution
always
subject
control
legislature
body
prescribes
age
parties
may
contract
marry
procedure
form
essential
constitute
marriage
duties
obligations
creates
effects
upon
property
rights
present
prospective
acts
may
constitute
grounds
dissolution
maynard
hill
ii
state
power
domestic
relations
without
constitutional
limits
due
process
clause
requires
showing
justification
government
intrudes
choices
concerning
family
living
arrangements
manner
contrary
deeply
rooted
traditions
moore
east
cleveland
plurality
opinion
cf
smith
organization
foster
families
due
process
constraints
also
limit
extent
state
may
monopolize
process
ordering
certain
human
relationships
excluding
truly
indigent
process
boddie
connecticut
furthermore
equal
protection
clause
means
chosen
state
case
must
bear
fair
substantial
relation
object
legislation
reed
reed
quoting
royster
guano
virginia
craig
boren
powell
concurring
wisconsin
measure
case
pass
muster
either
due
process
equal
protection
standards
appellant
identifies
three
objectives
supposedly
furthered
statute
question
counseling
function
ii
incentive
satisfy
outstanding
support
obligations
iii
deterrent
incurring
obligations
opinion
amply
demonstrates
asserted
counseling
objective
bears
relation
statute
ante
discussion
required
collection
device
rationale
presents
somewhat
difficult
question
agree
suggestion
opinion
state
may
never
condition
right
marry
satisfaction
existing
support
obligations
simply
state
alternative
methods
compelling
payments
extent
restriction
applies
persons
able
make
required
support
payments
simply
wish
shirk
moral
legal
obligation
constitution
interposes
bar
additional
collection
mechanism
vice
inheres
collection
concept
failure
make
provision
without
means
comply
obligations
draw
support
justice
harlan
opinion
boddie
connecticut
case
struck
filing
fees
divorce
actions
applied
wholly
unable
pay
holding
state
may
consistent
obligations
imposed
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
right
dissolve
legal
relationship
without
affording
citizens
access
means
prescribed
monopolization
present
case
total
wisconsin
recognize
foreign
marriages
fail
conform
requirements
third
justification
obliquely
advanced
appellant
statute
preserves
ability
marriage
applicants
support
prior
issue
preventing
incurring
new
obligations
challenged
provisions
grossly
underinclusive
respect
objective
given
many
ways
additional
financial
obligations
may
incurred
applicant
quite
apart
contemplated
marriage
classification
bear
fair
substantial
relation
object
legislation
craig
boren
supra
powell
concurring
see
eisenstadt
baird
cf
moore
east
cleveland
plurality
opinion
marriage
applicant
required
wisconsin
statute
submit
proof
compliance
support
obligation
also
demonstrate
unspecified
way
children
likely
thereafter
become
public
charges
statute
simply
fail
alleviate
consequences
differences
economic
circumstances
exist
wholly
apart
state
action
griffin
illinois
harlan
dissenting
tells
truly
indigent
whether
met
support
obligations
may
marry
long
children
public
charges
danger
children
might
go
public
assistance
future
apparently
jurisdiction
embraced
approach
method
reducing
number
children
public
assistance
state
established
justification
unprecedented
foreclosure
marriage
many
citizens
solely
indigency
concur
judgment
although
cases
cited
text
indicate
sphere
privacy
autonomy
surrounding
existing
marital
relationship
state
may
lightly
intrude
necessarily
suggest
barrier
justification
blocks
regulation
conditions
entry
dissolution
marital
bond
see
generally
henkin
privacy
autonomy
colum
rev
boddie
applied
challenge
require
invalidation
unconstitutional
face
ordinary
circumstances
merely
require
wisconsin
permit
members
appellee
class
marry
demonstrate
bona
fides
indigency
statute
question
however
contain
severability
clause
wisconsin
legislature
made
specific
provision
contingency
utilization
procedures
may
stayed
enjoined
order
event
stay
injunction
february
laws
ch
stat
legis
serv
west
provides
permission
remarry
may
likewise
granted
petitioner
submits
clear
convincing
proof
reasonable
cause
able
comply
previous
obligation
child
support
dissenting
opinion
justice
rehnquist
suggests
appellee
may
longer
incapable
discharging
arrearage
required
support
order
contributing
sufficient
funds
future
remove
child
welfare
rolls
post
basis
record
speculation
parties
entered
stipulation
august
month
appellee
denied
marriage
license
appellee
unemployed
indigent
unable
pay
sum
support
issue
app
opinion
dated
august
district
noted
redhail
case
poverty
unable
satisfy
support
obligation
ordered
paternity
action
hence
state
grant
permission
marry
supp
ed
appellant
challenged
factual
predicate
trial
determination
even
intimated
appellee
financial
situation
improved
materially
matters
course
may
inquired
local
pursuant
new
procedures
go
effect
february
plaintiff
companion
case
leipzig
pallamolla
supp
ed
complied
support
obligations
denied
permission
marry
four
minor
children
received
welfare
benefits
quite
apart
impact
truly
indigent
statute
appears
confer
upon
judge
license
arbitrary
procedure
kent
determination
whether
applicant
children
likely
thereafter
become
public
charges
serious
question
procedural
due
process
raised
feature
standardless
discretion
particularly
light
hazards
prediction
area
justice
stevens
concurring
judgment
tension
language
justice
marshall
opinion
unanimous
holding
califano
jobst
ante
exposition
reasons
wisconsin
statute
offends
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
necessary
state
allocates
benefits
burdens
may
valid
reasons
treating
married
unmarried
persons
differently
classification
based
marital
status
accepted
characteristic
tax
legislation
selective
service
rules
social
security
regulations
cases
like
jobst
demonstrate
laws
may
significantly
interfere
decisions
enter
marital
relationship
ante
kind
interference
however
sufficient
reason
invalidating
every
law
reflecting
legislative
judgment
relevant
differences
married
persons
class
unmarried
persons
class
classification
based
marital
status
fundamentally
different
classification
determines
may
lawfully
enter
marriage
relationship
individual
interest
making
marriage
decision
independently
sufficiently
important
merit
special
constitutional
protection
see
whalen
roe
however
interest
constitutionally
immune
evenhanded
regulation
thus
laws
prohibiting
marriage
child
close
relative
person
afflicted
venereal
disease
unchallenged
even
though
interfere
directly
substantially
right
marry
ante
wisconsin
statute
different
character
statute
person
economic
status
may
determine
eligibility
enter
lawful
marriage
noncustodial
parent
whose
children
public
charges
may
marry
even
met
obligations
thus
within
class
parents
fulfilled
obligations
rich
may
marry
poor
may
type
statutory
discrimination
believe
totally
unprecedented
well
inconsistent
tradition
administering
justice
equally
rich
poor
statute
appears
reflect
legislative
judgment
persons
demonstrated
inability
support
offspring
permitted
marry
thereafter
bring
additional
children
world
even
putting
one
side
growing
number
childless
marriages
burgeoning
number
children
born
wedlock
sort
reasoning
justify
deliberate
discrimination
poor
statute
prevents
impoverished
parents
marrying
even
though
intended
spouses
economically
independent
presumably
wisconsin
legislature
assumed
fathers
affected
legislation
never
marry
employed
women
first
assumption
ignores
fact
fathers
sometimes
awarded
custody
second
ignores
composition
today
work
force
extent
statute
denies
hardpressed
parent
opportunity
prove
intended
marriage
ease
rather
aggravate
financial
straits
rests
unreliable
premises
also
defeats
objectives
questionable
assumptions
also
explain
statutory
blunderbuss
wide
target
another
respect
prohibition
marriage
applies
noncustodial
parent
allows
parent
custody
marry
without
state
leave
yet
danger
new
children
strain
inadequate
budget
equally
great
custodial
noncustodial
parents
unless
one
assumes
mothers
ever
custody
never
marry
unemployed
men
characteristically
law
fails
regulate
marriages
parents
least
likely
able
afford
another
family
applies
parents
order
support
children
stat
poorest
parents
unlikely
objects
support
orders
state
meant
prevent
marriage
demonstrated
inability
provide
children
overlooked
obvious
targets
legislative
concern
sum
provision
either
futile
perverse
insofar
applies
childless
couples
couples
illegitimate
children
forbidden
marry
couples
whose
economic
status
improved
marriage
couples
poor
marriage
impact
welfare
status
children
event
even
assuming
right
marry
may
sometimes
denied
economic
grounds
clumsy
deliberate
legislative
discrimination
rich
poor
irrational
many
ways
withstand
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
jobst
pointed
rational
congress
assume
marital
status
relevant
test
probable
dependency
explained
tradition
common
experience
support
conclusion
marriage
event
normally
marks
important
change
economic
status
traditionally
event
creates
new
family
attendant
new
responsibilities
also
modifies
relationships
bride
groom
respective
families
frequently
course
financial
independence
marriage
go
hand
hand
nevertheless
question
validity
assumption
married
person
less
likely
dependent
parents
support
one
unmarried
ante
jobst
former
category
loving
virginia
latter
justice
powell
demonstrates
constitutional
defect
provision
invalidates
entire
statute
ante
economic
aspects
prospective
marriage
unquestionably
relevant
almost
every
individual
marriage
decision
know
state
statute
denies
individual
marriage
partners
right
assess
financial
consequences
decision
independently
seriously
question
whether
limitation
right
marry
may
predicated
economic
status
question
need
answered
case
tradition
explains
member
federal
judiciary
sworn
affirmed
equal
right
poor
rich
see
public
charge
provision
falls
parents
faithfully
met
obligations
unable
pay
enough
remove
children
welfare
rolls
obviously
justified
state
interest
assuring
payment
child
support
course
absurd
state
contend
interest
providing
paternalistic
counseling
supports
total
ban
marriage
wisconsin
legislature
provided
determining
parent
child
shall
remain
shall
consider
facts
best
interest
child
shall
prefer
one
parent
solely
basis
sex
parent
stat
plainly
assumptions
product
habitual
way
thinking
male
female
roles
rather
analysis
actual
reflection
see
califano
goldfarb
stevens
concurring
judgment
although
wisconsin
precedents
scarce
state
courts
seem
follow
general
rule
orders
heavily
influenced
parent
ability
pay
see
clark
law
domestic
relations
see
also
miller
miller
parent
disabled
never
earn
enough
pay
child
support
unlikely
sued
order
unlikely
granted
cf
ponath
hedrick
social
security
benefits
included
determining
relative
ability
make
support
payments
neither
fact
appellee
interest
constitutionally
protected
fact
classification
based
economic
status
sufficient
justify
level
scrutiny
strict
holding
unconstitutionality
virtually
foreordained
hand
presence
factors
precludes
holding
rational
expectation
occasional
random
benefit
sufficient
demonstrate
compliance
constitutional
command
govern
impartially
see
craig
boren
stevens
concurring
justice
rehnquist
dissenting
substantially
agree
brother
powell
reasons
rejecting
conclusion
marriage
sort
fundamental
right
must
invariably
trigger
strictest
judicial
scrutiny
disagree
imposition
intermediate
standard
review
leads
conclude
statute
though
generally
valid
additional
collection
mechanism
offends
constitution
failure
make
provision
without
means
comply
obligations
ante
similar
reasons
disagree
brother
stewart
conclusion
statute
invalid
failure
exempt
persons
simply
afford
meet
statute
financial
requirements
ante
view
legislative
judgment
light
traditional
presumption
validity
think
equal
protection
clause
statute
need
pass
rational
basis
test
dandridge
williams
due
process
clause
need
shown
bears
rational
relation
constitutionally
permissible
objective
williamson
lee
optical
ferguson
skrupa
harlan
concurring
statute
viewed
permissible
exercise
state
power
regulate
family
life
assure
support
minor
children
despite
possible
imprecision
extreme
cases
envisioned
concurring
opinions
earlier
term
traditional
standard
review
applied
califano
jobst
ante
despite
claim
statute
question
burdened
exercise
right
marry
extreme
situation
considered
involved
permanently
disabled
appellee
whose
benefits
social
security
act
terminated
marriage
equally
disabled
woman
however
beneficiary
act
recognized
congress
granting
original
benefit
reasonably
assume
disabled
adult
child
remained
dependent
upon
parents
support
concluded
upon
beneficiary
marriage
congress
terminate
benefits
question
validity
assumption
married
person
less
likely
dependent
parents
support
one
unmarried
ante
although
assumption
proved
false
applied
individual
case
statute
nevertheless
rational
broad
legislative
classification
must
judged
reference
characteristics
typical
affected
classes
rather
focusing
selected
atypical
examples
ante
analysis
applied
jobst
equally
applicable
wisconsin
legislature
adopted
rule
course
constructing
complex
social
welfare
system
necessarily
deals
intimacies
family
life
ante
limited
amount
funds
available
support
needy
children
state
exceptionally
strong
interest
securing
much
support
parents
able
pay
extent
burden
imposed
statute
differentiate
considered
jobst
warrant
different
result
case
applicants
statute
makes
proposed
marriage
legally
impossible
financial
reasons
similar
number
extreme
cases
social
security
act
makes
proposed
marriage
practically
impossible
reasons
conclude
difference
justifies
application
heightened
standard
review
statute
question
short
conclude
statute
despite
imperfections
sufficiently
rational
satisfy
demands
fourteenth
amendment
two
opinions
concurring
judgment
seem
agree
statute
sufficiently
rational
except
applied
truly
indigent
ante
stewart
ante
powell
view
statute
suppose
constitutionally
applied
forbid
marriages
applicants
willfully
failed
contribute
much
means
support
dependent
children
even
agree
statute
based
upon
generally
valid
assumptions
struck
basis
selected
atypical
examples
jobst
ante
concur
judgment
showing
appellee
truly
indigent
state
refuse
sanction
marriage
rules
standing
litigant
may
assert
invalidity
statute
applied
case
person
statute
may
constitutionally
applied
heard
challenge
statute
ground
may
conceivably
applied
unconstitutionally
others
situations
broadrick
oklahoma
see
also
barrows
jackson
made
limited
exception
rule
cases
arising
first
amendment
allowing
invalidation
facially
overbroad
statutes
guard
chilling
effect
exercise
constitutionally
protected
free
speech
see
coates
cincinnati
claim
based
first
amendment
made
appellee
appellee
standing
contest
validity
statute
applied
must
considered
basis
facts
stipulated
district
state
conceded
without
requiring
proof
rom
may
august
appellee
unemployed
indigent
unable
pay
sum
support
issue
app
stipulation
record
appellee
indigent
time
denied
marriage
license
september
indigent
time
filed
complaint
december
indigent
time
district
rendered
judgment
august
know
recent
financial
condition
counsel
concession
oral
argument
appellee
married
illinois
tr
oral
arg
clearly
demonstrating
knows
obtain
funds
purpose
deems
sufficiently
important
inartfully
stipulated
facts
said
even
appellee
incapable
discharging
arrearage
required
support
order
contributing
sufficient
funds
future
remove
child
welfare
rolls
therefore
even
view
taken
opinions
concurring
judgment
appellee
shown
statute
unconstitutional
applied
conclusion
statute
valid
despite
possible
application
truly
indigent
need
determine
whether
named
appellee
failure
establish
indigency
preclude
granting
injunctive
relief
indigent
members
class
appellee
purports
represent
decisions
demonstrated
claim
named
representative
become
moot
bound
dismiss
action
may
consider
variety
factors
determining
whether
proceed
see
generally
kremens
bartley
never
explicitly
determined
whether
similar
considerations
apply
named
representative
never
valid
claim
see
allee
medrano
burger
concurring
dissenting
light
view
merits
content
save
question
another
day
reverse
judgment
district
ordinarily
class
representative
must
part
class
possess
interest
suffer
injury
class
members
east
texas
motor
freight
rodriguez
quoting
schlesinger
reservists
committee
stop
war
least
issue
properly
raised
appellate
may
consider
representative
failure
establish
claim
determining
whether
class
action
may
maintained
see
donaldson
pillsbury
cf
east
texas
supra
instances
may
eliminate
class
persons
named
plaintiff
may
adequately
represent
la
mar
novelty
loan
case
approach
require
dismissal
class
action
altogether
since
appellee
represent
one
valid
claim
state
however
inexplicably
failed
challenge
certification
plaintiff
class
either
trial