B2017 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof.

Aguiling-Pangalangan | 1

Zablocki v. Redhail
Doctrine: Admission to the bar of women is not one of the privileges guaranteed by the 14 th Amendment of the US
Constitution.
Short version:
A Wisconsin statute only allows residents of Wisconsin, who has a minor not in their custody and has an obligation to
support it (by court order or judgment), to marry in Wisconsin or anywhere if they can secure the courts permission by
submitting proof of compliance with the obligation and proving that the minor will not likely become the publics
responsibility after. Zablocki contends that the statute impinges on every Wisconsin residents right to marry. The Court
upheld the District Courts ruling that the statute was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal
Protection).
Facts:
A Wisconsin statute provides that any resident of Wisconsin who has (i) a minor not in their custody and, (ii) by
court order or judgment, are obligated to provide support for that minor, may not marry without courts permission.
o Permission can be secured by submitting the ff: (i) proof of compliance to the obligation and (ii) prove that
these children are not likely to become responsibilities of the state later on
Thomas Zablocki (appellant), a Wisconsin resident with an illegitimate child whom he ordered to support, was
denied a marriage license because he did not obtain the courts permission.
Zablocki filed a civil rights class action suit in the US Eastern District Court of Wisconsin, which claimed that the
statute violated the US constitution, particularly the 14 th Amendment
DC found the statute unconstitutional and enjoined the enforcement of the statute
Issue: Whether or not the Statue violated the 14th AmendmentYES
Held: Yes.

Contention
The statute is not unconstitutional.

US Supreme Court
No. The statute impinges upon the fundamental right to
marry as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.
Those who were unable to meet the standards (i.e., the
poor or those who are unable to prove that their children will
not become state responsibilities later on, both of which
Zablocki wanted to represent in the class action suit) to
obtain court permission are effectively denied the right to
marry guaranteed to all and so violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The statute aims to promote two interests:

- Persons with obligations to support their out-ofcustody children can be counseled before
being given permission to enter into a new
marriage
- The welfare of the out-of-custody children is
upheld

While states do have the power to create laws regarding

the prerequisites of marriage, these laws should not
interfere with the actual decision to enter into marriage or
not.
There was no provision in the statute that expressly
required or provided for any form of counseling.
The state views this as a collection device which gives an
incentive for parents to actually make support payments to
their children. Supreme Court disagrees. First, those who
are really unable to pay will just end up not getting court
permission to be able to marry while out-of-custody minors
still get no support. Second, and more importantly, there are
already other statutes presents that promote/require the
compliance of parents to pay the support of their out-ofcustody child, and they do not impinge on the right to marry.

B2017 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof. Aguiling-Pangalangan | 2

-digest by Ron Husmillo