Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co.

Background

This set of cases involves people who say they were shut out of civil courts because they could not afford fees, bonds, or lawyers. The Court had earlier held in Boddie v. Connecticut that indigent people could not be denied access to divorce courts for inability to pay filing fees. The current matters include bankrupts facing a $50 filing fee, tenants risking doubled rent when defending evictions, people who cannot afford appeal fees or bonds in housing or guardianship disputes, and a mother who was denied court-appointed counsel in a civil child‑custody proceeding.

Reasoning

The central question is whether the Boddie rule for indigent divorce litigants should extend to other civil disputes and to appeals and counsel. Justice Black argued that the courts belong to the people and poverty should not bar access to trials or appeals, fees, bonds, or necessary lawyers. He said the Boddie reasoning cannot be limited to divorce, that appeals and appointed counsel follow from meaningful access, and he urged broad review. The Court as a whole, however, chose a narrower procedural path: it denied review in five cases, vacated and remanded two for reconsideration in light of Boddie, and noted probable jurisdiction in one eviction-appeal case to be argued.

Real world impact

Immediately, most of these indigent litigants did not get a full Supreme Court hearing, one eviction-appeal case will proceed, and two lower-court judgments were sent back for reconsideration. The announcements do not themselves resolve whether fee waivers, free counsel, or appeal access must be provided in all civil cases; those substantive questions remain open and could be decided later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas agreed that Boddie must apply more broadly and emphasized equal protection, urging appointment of counsel and other protections for indigent civil defendants.