Zablocki v. Redhail

1978-01-18

Headline: Court strikes down Wisconsin law that blocked some parents from marrying unless they paid child support, restoring marriage access for low-income residents without prior court permission.

Holding: The Court held that Wisconsin’s statute barring residents with unpaid child-support obligations and publicly supported children from marrying without a court order violated the Equal Protection Clause because it unduly burdened the fundamental right to marry.

Real World Impact:

Stops states from denying marriage licenses solely for unpaid child support.
Protects low-income parents from being permanently barred from marriage.
Requires states to use other child-support enforcement methods instead of blocking marriage.

Topics: marriage rights, child support, equal protection, family law

Summary

Background

A Wisconsin resident who had been ordered to pay child support but had not done so was denied a marriage license under a state law that made certain people wait for a court order before marrying. The law applied to residents who had minor children not in their custody and who were under court support orders. It required proof that support obligations were met and that the children were not and would not become public charges. Marriages entered without complying with the law were void and could trigger criminal penalties.

Reasoning

The Court concluded that the state rule significantly interfered with the fundamental right to marry and therefore required close review. The majority said the law was not closely tailored to its stated goals. The State’s asserted aims — counseling applicants, encouraging payment of child support, and avoiding new family obligations — were either unsupported in the statute or could be achieved by other enforcement tools. The Court noted existing alternatives like wage assignments, civil contempt, and criminal penalties, and that the statute could bar poor people who simply could not pay.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents Wisconsin from using a blanket financial bar to stop many residents from marrying. Affected people, especially those who are indigent or whose children already receive public assistance, cannot be permanently denied marriage licenses under this statute. The opinion leaves room for states to use reasonable, narrowly targeted measures to ensure child support, but not to deny the basic right to marry as a collection device.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices agreed the law could not stand but differed on why. Some said the problem was a due process liberty invasion rather than equal protection. One dissent argued the law was rational and should survive unless the challenger proved true indigency.