Cases by Issue - Rights of Illegitimates

Miller v. Albright

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:29 +0000

Location

United States Department of State

2201 C St. NW Washington DC 20520

Washington, DC 20520

United States

38° 53' 37.0356" N, 77° 2' 56.8896" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-1060

Petitioner

Miller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Albright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 420 (1998)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Donald R. Patterson (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Lorelyn Miller was born in the Philippines, in 1970, to a Filipino national woman and an American soldier. Her parents were never married. In 1992, after the State Department rejected her first application for U.S. citizenship, Miller reapplied when a Texas court granted her father's petition for a paternity decree declaring him her father. When the State Department rejected her citizenship application again, claiming that 8 U.S.C. Section 1409(a) required foreign born illegitimate children of American fathers to be legitimated before age 18, Miller challenged the refusal. She claimed that since Section 1409(c) established at birth the citizenship of an illegitimate foreign-born child whose mother was an American citizen, the State Department's refusal to do the same under Section 1409(a), when the father is an American citizen, was unconstitutional. On appeal from an appellate court's decision to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case, the Supreme Court granted Miller certiorari.

Question

Does 8 U.S.C. Section 1409, establishing upon birth the U.S. citizenship of illegitimate foreign-born children whose mothers only are U.S. citizens but failing to do the same if only their fathers are U.S. citizens, violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Albright, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

No. After ruling that Miller had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute, the Court held that 8 U.S.C. Section 1409 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court reasoned that different treatment of mothers and fathers of out-of-wedlock children was justified since the two parents are not "similarly situated." While the child's relationship with its father may be undisclosed for several years, its blood relationship to its mother is usually apparent through hospital records. Moreover, whereas birth mothers will know immediately of their child's existence, birth fathers and their children may never know each other. The statutory requirement that a child born out of wedlock to a citizen father obtain formal proof of paternity by age 18, either through legitimization, written acknowledgment by the father under oath, or adjudication by a competent court, is well tailored to address the difficulties of establishing a child's citizenship based only on the relation to the father.

Clark v. Jeter

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-5565

Petitioner

Clark

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jeter

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 456 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1988

Advocates

Craig McClean (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Evalynn B. Welling (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

A Pennsylvania law required illegitimate children to prove paternity before seeking support from their fathers. The statute of limitations on suits seeking to establish paternity was six years from the birth of the illegitimate child. However, the state allowed legitimate children to seek support from their parents at any time. Cherlyn Clark sought child support from Gene Jeter, whom she claimed was the father of her daughter, Tiffany. Blood tests indicated that there was a 99.3% probability that Jeter indeed was Tiffany's father. A state court dismissed Clark's suit because it was initiated after the statute of limitations had expired.

Question

Did the Pennsylvania law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Clark, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

The Court found that the statute violated the Constitution. Citing the test which the Court developed in Mills v. Habluetzel (1982) to evaluate equal protection challenges to statutes of limitations in paternity suits, Justice O'Connor held that the Pennsylvania law did not "provide a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim on behalf of an illegitimate child." Furthermore, since, in some circumstances, Pennsylvania permitted paternity suits involving illegitimate children to be initiated after six years, there was no reason why the law in question was necessary to deter the litigation of "stale or fraudulent claims," a legitimate state interest.

Reed v. Campbell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-755

Appellee

Campbell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Reed

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 852 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, April 30, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, June 11, 1986

Advocates

Paul Mc Collum (on behalf of the Appellee)

R. Stephen Mc Nally (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Reed, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Pickett v. Brown

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5576

Appellee

Brown

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pickett

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 1 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1983

Advocates

Susan Short (on behalf of the Appellees)

Harold W. Horne (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pickett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mills v. Habluetzel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-6298

Appellee

Habluetzel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mills

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 91 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, January 12, 1982

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mills, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

United States v. Clark

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1513

Appellee

Clark

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 23 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Advocates

Edward L. Merrigan (on behalf of the Appellees)

Harriet S. Shapiro (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Clark, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 8331

None

Califano v. Boles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-808

Appellee

Boles

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 282 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Califano, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Lalli v. Lalli

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1115

Appellee

Lalli

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lalli

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 259 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lalli, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Fiallo v. Bell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6297

Appellee

Bell

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Fiallo

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 787 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Trimble v. Gordon

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:10 +0000

Location

Trimble's Residence Cook County, IL

United States

41° 44' 15.5724" N, 87° 41' 51.1944" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-5952

Appellee

Gordon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Trimble

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 762 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, April 26, 1977

Facts of the Case

Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act, while allowing legitimate children to inherit by intestate succession from either their mothers or fathers, allowed illegitimate children to inherit by intestate succession only from their mothers. Consequently, Deta Trimble, the illegitimate daughter of Sherman Gordon, was unable to inherit her father's estate when he died intestate. After losing her challenge to Section 12 in the Illinois Supreme Court, Trimble appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Trimble, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Section 12 was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Applying the "rational relationship" test under the Clause, the Court emphasized that such a standard was not a "toothless" one. The Court then rejected the argument "that a State may attempt to influence the actions of men and women by imposing sanctions on the children born of their illegitimate relationships." The Court also noted that it was likely that Trimble would have inherited a substantial part of Gordon's estate had he written a will before his death.

Norton v. Mathews

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-6212

Appellee

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Norton

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 524 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mathews, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mathews v. Lucas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-88

Appellee

Lucas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

427 U.S. 495 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 29, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mathews, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Jimenez v. Weinberger

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6609

Appellee

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jimenez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 628 (1974)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Jimenez, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Gomez v. Perez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-575

Appellee

Perez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Gomez

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gomez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Linda R. S. v. Richard D.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6078

Appellee

Richard D.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Linda R. S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 614 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Richard D., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Willis v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5344

Petitioner

Willis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Prudential Insurance Company Of America

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 318 (1972)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, March 20, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Prudential Insurance Company Of America, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5112

Petitioner

Weber

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 164 (1972)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Weber, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Labine v. Vincent

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

5257

Appellee

Vincent

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Labine

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 532 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Vincent, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Levy v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

508

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Levy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 68 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Levy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Glona v. American Guarantee Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

639

Petitioner

Glona

Respondent

American Guarantee Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 73 (1968)

Argued

March 27-28, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Glona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6258

Petitioner

New Jersey Welfare Rights Org.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cahill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 619 (1973)

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Jersey Welfare Rights Org., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None