Zablocki v Redhail

Date Decided: January 18. 1978

Appellant: Zablocki
Appellee: Redhail
WISCONSIN STATUTE (SEC 245.10):
1. Any resident of having minor issue not in his custody
2. He is under obligation to support
- SHALL NOT MARRY w/o first obtaining courts permission to marry by:
a. Submits proof of compliance with the support obligation and
b. Demonstrates that the children covered by the support order are not
then or likely thereafter to become public charges.
Facts:
1. In 1972 when appellee Redhail was a minor high school student he was
found to be the father of a baby girl born out of wedlock and ordered by
Milwaukee court to pay monthly support ($109) as support for child until she
reached 18 y/o.
2. Appellee was unemployed and indigent until 1974, and unable to make
payments.
3. In 1974 appellee applied for a marriage certificate with appellant Zablocki, a
county clerk.

7. The statute allowed court permission only if the marriage applicant:

a. Submits proof of compliance with the support obligation
and
b. Demonstrates that the children covered by the support order
are not then or likely thereafter to become public charges (supported
by Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program).
8. A three judge court (District court) was convened regarding the
matter and held the Wisconsin statute invalid due to no pressing State
interest
8. The appellee was in arrearage (unpaid and overdue) on his payments of support
for his illegitimate child, and the child had been a public charge since her birth;
therefore he was unable to satisfy the requirements for a court order.
Issue: W/N the Wisconsin statute is unconstitutional
Held:
The statute is unconstitutional because:
o It significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right
and is
o Not supported by Sufficiently Important State Interests (SISI) and
is
Not closely tailored to effectuate only those interests

4. Appellee and the woman he desired to marry were expecting a child in March
1975 and wished to be lawfully married before that time.

The court employs a CRITICAL EXAMINATION of the state interests advanced

in support of the statute because the right to marry is of fundamental
importance. Previous court decisions have confirmed that the right to marry
is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5. The application was denied due to appellees failure to obtain the required court
order.

Loving v Virginia - 1. Due Process - liberty - freedom to marry/ 2. orderly pursuit of

happiness/ 3. basic civil rights of man

6. Redhail was unable to enter into a lawful marriage under a Wisconsin statute that
prohibits a resident to marry without court permission if he has a minor issue not in
his custody which he is obligated to pay support by court order.

Maynard v Hill - Marriage is the most important relation in life/ w/o which there
would be no civilization and progress

Meyer v Nebraska - Right to marry, establish a home and bring up children is a

central part of liberty

Skinner v Oklahoma - Marriage as fundamental to the very existence and survival

of the race
Griswold v Connecticut - Right to privacy older than the bill of rights/ Marriage as
coming together for better or for worse

Although reasonable restrictions that do not significantly interfere with the

right to marry may be imposed, the present statute absolutely prevents some in
the protected class from obtaining the required order, and places sufficient
burdens and significant intrusions on others.

Appellant claims that the statute:

1. Supports the States interest in counseling the applicant as to the
need of fulfilling his prior support obligations and
2. Protects the welfare of the out-of-custody children.

The first claim is faulty because even if counseling is provided there

would be no interest in continuing to withhold permission to marry
after counseling is completed.

The second is faulty for two reasons.

o First, if the individual is unable to meet payments, the
statute simply prevents marriage without providing
any money to the minor children.
o Second, the State has numerous other means for
extracting the payments: wage assignment, civil
contempt proceedings, or criminal penalty.

There is also suggestion that the statute prevents applicants from

incurring new support obligations.
Underinclusive because it limits only the new financial
commitments arising out of a marriage (new marriage is not the
only way people spend their resources)
Overinclusive because in many cases the income from the new
spouse may increase the applicants ability to pay. The statute
may only result in more children being born out of wedlock.