Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Zablocki v. Redhail

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionFundamental RightsMarriageEqual Protection Clauseright to marryfundamental rightcritical examination

Facts

Wisconsin law prohibited any state resident with minor children not in his custody and subject to a support order from marrying in Wisconsin or elsewhere without a court order. Court permission could not be granted unless the applicant proved compliance with the support order and showed that the children were not then and were not likely thereafter to become public charges; marriages entered without compliance were void, and violations could trigger criminal penalties. Redhail had been adjudged the father of a child born out of wedlock and ordered to pay support, but while unemployed and indigent he fell into arrears. When he applied for a marriage license, it was denied solely because he had not obtained the required court order, and the parties stipulated he could not satisfy either statutory prerequisite.

Issue

Whether Wisconsin may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, deny marriage to residents with out-of-custody minor children under support orders unless they first prove compliance with those obligations and prove the children are not and are not likely to become public charges. More specifically, the question was whether this statutory classification, which substantially burdened marriage, was justified by sufficiently important interests and closely tailored means.

Rule

Because the right to marry is of fundamental importance, a statutory classification that significantly interferes with the exercise of that right cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. By contrast, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed.

🔒

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.

Ohio enacts a statute providing that any resident who owes court-ordered support for a child living with another parent may not marry in Ohio or in any other jurisdiction unless a domestic-relations judge grants permission. A marriage entered without permission is void, and a clerk who issues a license anyway commits a misdemeanor. Marcus Hale, who is far behind on support, is denied a license in Columbus.

If Marcus challenges the statute under the Equal Protection Clause, which is the strongest argument that heightened review applies?

Explanation. The majority held that the right to marry is fundamental and that a classification triggering critical examination is one that significantly interferes with that right. A law requiring prior judicial approval, voiding marriages entered without approval, and absolutely preventing some people from marrying interferes directly and substantially with the right to marry. The Court did not say all marriage regulations get heightened review, but it did require it for this kind of serious barrier.