Document: 466 U.S. 429 104 S.Ct. 1879 80 L.Ed.2d 421 Linda Sidoti PALMORE, Petitionerv.Anthony J. SIDOTI. No. 82-1734. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 22, 1984. Decided April 25, Syllabus When petitioner and respondent, both Caucasians, were divorced in Florida, petitioner, mother, was awarded custody their 3-year-old daughter. The following year respondent sought child by filing a petition to modify prior judgment because changed conditions, namely, that then cohabiting with Negro, whom she later married. Florida trial court concluding child's best interests would be served thereby. Without focusing directly on parental qualifications her present husband, or reasoned although respondent's resentment at petitioner's choice black partner insufficient deprive custody, there damaging impact if remained racially mixed household. District Appeal affirmed. Held: effects racial prejudice, however real, cannot justify classification removing an infant from its natural mother. Constitution control such but neither can it tolerate it. Private biases may outside reach law, law cannot, indirectly, give them effect. Pp. 431-434. 426 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2 DCA 1982), reversed. Robert Shapiro, Tampa, Fla., for petitioner. John E. Hawtrey, Bryan, Tex., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari review state divesting mother remarriage person different race. * Palmore Anthony Sidoti, May 1980 3 In September 1981 father conditions. change Clarence Palmore, Jr., married two months later. Additionally, made several allegations instances which had not properly cared child. 4 After hearing testimony parties considering counselor's investigative report, noted about care, no findings respect these allegations. On contrary, finding "there is issue as either party's devotion child, adequacy housing facilities, respectability new spouse parent." App. Pet. Cert. 24. 5 addressed recommendations counselor, who earlier report "in [another] case coming out this circuit also involving social consequences interracial marriage. Niles v. Niles, 299 162." Id., 25. From vague reference case, turned recommendation "[t]he wife [petitioner] has chosen herself life-style unacceptable society. . is, school age will be, subject environmental pressures choice." Record 84 (emphasis added). 6 concluded awarding father. court's rationale contained following: 7 Second affirmed without opinion, (1982), thus denying jurisdiction case. See Fla. Const., Art. V, § 3(b)(3); Jenkins State, 385 1356 (Fla.1980). certiorari, 464 913, 271, 78 253 (1983), we reverse. II 8 determining reviewing decision ordinarily likely candidate However, after stating "father's evident mother's sufficient" turns what regarded remaining 26. This raises important federal concerns arising Constitution's commitment eradicating discrimination based 9 did focus indeed father's have found This, taken absence any negative quality care provided constitutes rejection claim unfitness continue 10 correctly stated welfare controlling factor. But entirely candid effort place holding ground other than Taking face value, clear outcome been Caucasian male similar respectability. 11 A core purpose Fourteenth Amendment do away all governmentally imposed1 Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 307-308, 310, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880). Classifying persons according race more reflect prejudice legitimate public concerns; race, person, dictates category. Personnel Administrator Mass. Feeney, 442 256, 272, 99 2282, 2292, 60 870 (1979). Such classifications are most exacting scrutiny; pass constitutional muster, they must justified compelling governmental interest "necessary accomplishment" purpose, McLaughlin 379 184, 196, 85 283, 290, 13 222 (1964). Loving 388 1, 11, 87 1817, 1823, 18 1010 (1967). 12 course, duty highest order protect minor children, particularly those tender years. common states, mandates determinations children involved. Fla.Stat. 61.13(2)(b)(1) (1983). goal granting indisputably substantial purposes Equal Protection Clause. It ignore reality suggest ethnic prejudices exist manifestations eliminated. There risk living stepparent variety stresses parents same origin. 14 question, however, whether private possible injury might inflict permissible considerations removal little difficulty not.2 them. "Public officials sworn uphold avoid bowing hypothetical assume widely deeply held." Palmer Thompson, 403 217, 260-261, 91 1940, 1962-1963, 29 438 (1971) (WHITE, J., dissenting). 15 means first time acknowledged invoked classifications. Buchanan Warley, 245 60, 38 16, 62 149 (1917), example, invalidated Kentucky forbidding Negroes buy homes white neighborhoods. 16 "It urged proposed segregation promote peace preventing conflicts. Desirable preservation peace, aim accomplished laws ordinances deny rights created protected Federal Constitution." 81, S.Ct., 20. 17 Whatever problems households pose 1984 support denial could residential integration thought entail 1917. appropriate custody.3 19 so ordered. actions courts judicial officers official capacity long held action governed Amendment. Shelley Kraemer, 334 68 836, 92 1161 (1948); Ex parte 339, 346-347, 676 light our Clause, need resolve Amendment's Due Process conclusion finds cases well. For instance, Watson Memphis, 373 526, 83 1314, 529 (1963), city claimed desegregation parks proceed slowly "prevent disturbances, violence, riots, community confusion turmoil." 535, 1319. predictions "personal speculations disquietudes," id., 536, 1320, "constitutional denied simply hostility assertion exercise," 1319-1320. Wright Georgia, 284, 1240, 349 reversed Negro defendant's breach-of-peace conviction, "the possibility disorder others exclusion otherwise right (founded upon Clause) present." 293, 1246.

Category: 1