Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Boddie v. Connecticut

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawDue ProcessAccess to CourtsDivorceDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentmeaningful opportunity to be heard

Facts

The appellants were welfare recipients in Connecticut who sought divorces in good faith but could not afford the approximately $60 required to file and serve divorce actions. Their affidavits showed that their welfare income barely covered daily necessities and included no funds for court access. The clerk returned their divorce papers for nonpayment of the entry fee, and their later efforts to obtain a waiver of the fee and court-assisted service failed. Under Connecticut law, judicial process was the only way to dissolve a marriage.

Issue

Whether Connecticut may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, deny indigent persons access to its courts for divorce solely because they cannot pay filing fees and service-of-process costs. More specifically, the question was whether those costs, as applied to these indigent appellants seeking divorce in good faith, unconstitutionally denied them a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Rule

Absent a countervailing state interest of overriding significance, due process requires that persons forced to settle their claims of right and duty through the judicial process be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. When the State monopolizes the only lawful means for dissolving marriage, it may not, consistent with due process, deny access to that process solely because of inability to pay court fees and service costs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Lena Ortiz receives public assistance and files affidavits showing her income covers only rent, food, and utilities. Ohio permits legal dissolution of marriage only through a court decree, but the clerk in Cleveland refuses to accept her divorce complaint unless she prepays a filing fee and sheriff-service costs she cannot afford.

If Lena brings a Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge to the fee requirements as applied to her, which is the strongest argument for Lena?

Explanation. The majority held that when the State monopolizes the only lawful means for dissolving marriage, due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Thus, as applied to an indigent person seeking divorce in good faith, the State may not deny access solely because of inability to pay court fees and service costs unless a countervailing interest of overriding significance justifies the denial. The decision was expressly limited and did not invalidate all civil filing fees.