Document: 434 U.S. 374 98 S.Ct. 673 54 L.Ed.2d 618 Thomas E. ZABLOCKI, Milwaukee County Clerk, etc., Appellant,v.Roger C. REDHAIL, etc. No. 76-879. Argued Oct. 4, 1977. Decided Jan. 18, 1978. Syllabus Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of State "having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by court order or judgment" may marry without a approval order, cannot be granted absent showing the has been met children covered "are then are likely thereafter become public charges," held violate Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 383-391. (a) Since right fundamental importance, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 1, 87 1817, 18 1010, statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with exercise right, "critical examination" state interests advanced required. Massachusetts Board Retirement Murgia, 427 307, 312, 314, 96 2562, 2566, 2567, 49 520. 383-387. (b) The assertedly served challenged unnecessarily impinge on marry. If designed furnish an opportunity counsel persons prior child-support obligations before further such incurred, it neither expressly requires counseling nor provides for automatic after completed. justified as encouraging applicant children. By proceeding State, already possesses numerous other means exacting compliance obligations, merely prevents from getting married, ensuring applicant's Though suggested protects ability marriage applicants meet new ones incurred both underinclusive (as does limit financial commitments than those arising out contemplated marriage) overinclusive (since spouse better situation). 388-390. 418 F.Supp. 1061, affirmed. Ward L. Johnson, Jr., Madison, Wis., appellant. Robert H. Blondis, Milwaukee, appellee. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 At this case constitutionality statute, Wis.Stat. §§ 245.10(1), (4), (5) (1973), members certain class residents marry, within elsewhere, first obtaining granting permission defined include "Wisconsin having judgment." specifies unless submits proof and, addition, demonstrates charges." No license lawfully issued person except upon order; entered into § 245.10 declared void; acquiring licenses violation section subject criminal penalties.1 2 After being denied because failure comply 245.10, appellee brought action 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging violative Due Process Clauses Amendment seeking declaratory injunctive relief. United States District Court Eastern unconstitutional enjoined its enforcement. 1061 (1976). We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 1089, 97 1096, 51 534 (1977), we now affirm. 3 * Appellee Redhail who, terms unable enter lawful elsewhere so long maintains residency. facts, according stipulation filed parties Court, follows. In January 1972, when was high school student, paternity instituted against him alleging father baby girl born wedlock July 5, 1971. appeared admitted child's father, May 12, adjudging ordering pay $109 per month child until she reached years age. From 1972 August 1974, unemployed indigent, consequently make payments.2 4 On September 27, application appellant Zablocki, Clerk County,3 few days later sole ground had obtained required 245.10. Although did petition thereafter, stipulated would have able satisfy either prerequisites First, satisfied illegitimate child, December 1974 there arrearage excess $3,700. Second, charge since her birth, receiving benefits Aid Families Dependent Children program. It benefit payments were even if current payments. 5 24, complaint behalf himself all who refused pursuant 245.10(1) one county clerks Wisconsin. Zablocki named defendant, individually representative consisting State. alleged, among things, woman desired expecting March 1975 wished married time. attacked grounds deprived appellee, sought represent equal protection due process rights secured Fifth, Ninth, Amendments Constitution. 6 A three-judge convened 28 2281, 2284. moved certification plaintiff defendant classes complaint, dated February 20, 1975, certified Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(b)(2).4 briefs merits, oral argument heard June 23, Attorney General's office participating addition parties. 7 handed down unanimous decision 31, 1976. ruled, first, abstain principles set forth Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 420 592, 95 1200, 43 482 (1975), Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669 (1971), no pending state-court could frustrated relief requested.5 proper Rules 23(a) (b)(2), Rule 23 prejudgment notice class.6 8 panel analyzed concluded "strict scrutiny" created infringed marry.7 proceeded evaluate justify finding necessary achievement interests, invalid enforcing it.8 9 Appellant direct appeal 1253, claiming erred Clause. defends lower court's holding alternative, urges affirmance Court's judgment requirements substantive process. agree violates Clause.9 II 10 evaluating Clause, "we must determine what burden justification thereby meet, looking nature individual affected." Memorial Hospital Maricopa County, 415 250, 253, 94 1076, 1079, 1080, 39 306 (1974). our past decisions clear at believe 520 (1976); see, San Antonio Independent School Dist. Rodriguez, 411 17, 93 1278, 1288, 36 16 (1973). 11 leading 1010 (1967). case, interracial couple convicted violating Virginia's miscegenation laws scheme grounds. rested solely statutes discriminated basis race Id., 11-12, S.Ct., 1823-1824. But went hold arbitrarily liberty protected freedom language latter point bears repeating: 12 "The recognized vital personal essential orderly pursuit happiness free men. 13 "Marriage 'basic civil man,' very existence survival." 1824, quoting Skinner Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 535, 541, 62 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). 14 arose context racial discrimination, subsequent confirm importance individuals. Long ago, Maynard Hill, 125 190, 723, 31 654 (1888), characterized "the most important relation life," id., 205, 726, foundation family society, civilization progress," 211, 729. Meyer Nebraska, 262 390, 625, 67 1042 (1923), "to establish home bring up children" central part 399, 626, supra, (1942), described "fundamental survival race," U.S., 1113. 15 More recent established "right privacy" implicit Amendment's Griswold Connecticut, 381 479, 85 1678, 510 (1965), observed: "We deal privacy older Bill Rights—older political parties, system. Marriage coming together worse, hopefully enduring, intimate degree sacred. association promotes way life, causes; harmony living, faiths; bilateral loyalty, commercial social projects. Yet noble purpose decisions." 486, 1682. 17 See also 495, 1687 (Goldberg, J., concurring); 502-503, 1691-1692 (White, concurring judgment). Cases routinely categorized privacy. generally Whalen Roe, 589, 598-600, nn. 23-26, 869, 876-877, 64 (1977). For example, last Term Carey Population Services International, 431 678, 2010, 52 675 declared: 19 "While outer limits [the privacy] marked unjustified government interference 'relating marriage, 1823, (1967); procreation, 541-542, 1113-1114, (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt Baird, 405 [438], 453-454, 92 [1029], 1038-1039, 349; 460, 463-465, 1042, 1043-1044 result); relationships, Prince Massachusetts, 321 158, 166, 438, 442, 88 645 (1944); rearing education, Pierce Society Sisters, 268 510, 45 571, 573, 69 1070 (1925); [262 (1923)].' " 684-685, 2016, Roe Wade, 410 113, 152-153, 705, 726-727, 35 147 20 Cleveland Education LaFleur, 414 632, 639-640, 791, 796, (1974) ("This choice matters life liberties Amendment"); Smith Organization Foster Families, 816, 842-844, 2094, 2109-2110, 53 (1977); Moore City East Cleveland, 494, 499, 1932, 1935-1936, 531 Paul Davis, 424 .S. 693, 713, 1155, 1166, 47 (1976).10 21 surprising placed same level relating childbirth, rearing, relationships. As facts illustrate, little sense recognize respect relationship society. whom seek abortion their expected see suffer myriad social, economic, disabilities status illegitimacy brings, Trimble Gordon, 430 762, 768-770, n. 13, 1459, 1464-1465 Weber Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 164, 175-176, 1400, 1406-1407, 768 (1972). Surely, raise traditional setting receive equivalent protection. And, appellee's procreate anything all, imply some only allows sexual relations legally take place.11 22 reaffirming character do mean suggest every regulation relates incidents subjected rigorous scrutiny. To contrary, reasonable regulations interfere marital legitimately imposed. Califano Jobst, 47, 95, 228, infra. here, however, clearly directly substantially Under affected marriages contracted void punishable offenses. Some class, like will never obtain they lack prove charges. These p rsons absolutely prevented married. Many others, theory statute's requirements, sufficiently burdened effect coerced forgoing And can persuaded serious intrusion area fundamental.12 III 24 When upheld supported closely tailored effectuate interests. See, 686, 2017; 262-263, 1084-1085; 16-17, 1287-1288; Bullock Carter, 134, 144, 849, 856, asserts two statute: permission-to-marry furnishes necessity fulfilling obligations; welfare out-of-custody protected. accept present purposes these legitimate substantial but, selected achieving sustained. 25 There evidence originally introduced Legislature, intended mechanism whereby counseled relationships obligations.13 required, but apparently automatically completed.14 actually enacted, require provide whatsoever, court,15 thus hardly coverage. Even assuming place—a fact record interest obviously withholding once 26 With regard safeguarding children, appellant's brief connection between State's requirements. argument, that, shows court-determined charges, incentive Tr. Oral Arg. 17-20. This "collection device" rationale broad infringement individuals delivering money hands importantly, regardless willingness least effective instant yet law, whether wedlock, enforced via wage assignments, contempt proceedings, penalties.16 believes parents should responsible achieved adjusting criteria used determining amounts paid orders. suggestion preventing incurring obligations. provisions grossly purpose, marriage. well: Given possibility situation, contributing income job otherwise, many cases prevent improving although true incur during result occurred case. ince net simply more 29 it. is, accordingly, 30 Affirmed. Chief BURGER, concurring. 32 I join MARSHALL's deference, STEVENS' persuade me analysis significant inconsistent 228. Unlike intentional effected Social Security Act Jobst constitute "attempt individual's marriage," 54, 99, most, indirect impact decision. understanding today. 33 STEWART, judgment. 34 hold, does, seems misconceive meaning constitutional guarantee. deals freedoms invidiously discriminatory classifications. 59, 1310, (concurring opinion). paradigm course, race. McLaughlin Florida, 379 184, 283, 222; Like almost us affects people affect others. say creates "classifications" strikes short fantasy. problem classifications, unwarranted encroachment constitutionally freedom. think exceeds bounds permissible invades sphere marry" sense. That accurately privilege,1 federal system peculiarly limited law. Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 404, 553, 559, 532. "significantly relationship,"2 circumstances prohibit sibling, old, passing examination venereal disease, living husband wife. But, just surely, regulating human beyond go. 37 Constitution specifically mention settled "liberty" embraces enumerated Rights. Schware Bar Examiners, 353 232, 238-239, 77 752, 755-756, 796; 573-574, 1070; 399-400, 626-627, 1042. Cf. Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 629-630, 89 1322, 1328-1329, 600; Guest, 383 745, 757-758, 1170, 1177-1178, 239; Aptheker Secretary 378 500, 505, 84 1659, 1663, 992; Kent Dulles, 357 116, 127, 78 1118, 1204; Truax Raich, 239 33, 41, 7, 10, 60 131. made 639, 52; 147; 1823; 485-486, 1682-1683, 510; supra; supra. 645; 1655. 38 evident law abridges question abridgment overcome protections makes turn payment one's previous liaison. Those show kept wards altogether prohibited marrying. 40 said fines assessed traffic violations, suppose invalidity apparent. while certainly legitimate, disproportionate unrelated restriction imposed clear, largely abused past. 41 Looked way, seen collection device additional parental operates denying reflects legislative permitted fulfilled has. Insofar paternalistic rather punitive, manifests concern economic well-being prospective household. concerns follow absolute deprivation legal several occasions person's inability demanded total liberty. Boddie 371, 780, collecting filing fees divorce actions insufficient deprive indigent access courts where dissolve relationship. Tate Short, 395, 668, 130 Williams Illinois, 399 235, 90 2018, 586, offender term imprisonment increased, curtailed, reason fine. principle applies well. allowan e truly indigent. flatly denies anyone afford fulfill keep becoming assume delinquent reducing load. applied choose so, advances objectives ways superior available remains deny penalizes them failing do. indigents, irrational 44 directed parent, rational viewed assuring viability future marriages. context, plausible off rolls encounter similar difficulties future. soundness stop telling too poor might persist irresponsibility. invasion chance erroneous prediction great. alien traditions offensive shared notions fairness offends half century Holmes claim usual resort arguments." Buck Bell, 274 200, 208, 584, 585, 71 1000. Today doctrine chief instrument invalidating laws. Yet, one, another name. 46 purports examine bases classifications compare treatment legislatively groups, erects limitations Thus, draw greater precision similarly situated persons. Rather, message use control over achieve statute. Such restrictions basic governmental power heart understandably reluctant rely 167-168, 733-734 embrace essence guise serves obfuscation. "[C]ouched slogans ringing phrases," shifts focus judicial inquiry away concerns, affected, extent rationality alternative effectuating confidence chosen." 260, 2031 (Harlan, result). 48 conceal appropriate invites mechanical thoughtless misfocused doctrine. open forces healthy recognition natur extreme wield when, name Constitution, invalidate pro tanto democracy sovereign Union. POWELL, 50 concur Wisconsin's exclusive creating bond, erected applicable standards. write separately majority's sweeps broadly traditionally pervasive regulation. "directly substantially" "compelling interest" analysis. Presumably, "reasonable imposed." Ante, 386. present, principled distinguishing types regulations. typically takes form prerequisite barrier divorce, "direct" unlikely guidance legislatures oversight. occasions, acknowledged maintenance values organized "This Amendment." Our indicate guarantee autonomy unjustifiable "has extension activities (1967) . ." 152, aspect .' fair familial places regulatory government. touching implicates right" triggering scrutiny.1 principal authority cited majority speaks "freedom "one men," focused Warren stated: survival. Oklahoma, (1888). unsupportable embodied subversive equality Amendment, surely citizens restricted invidious discriminations. resides State." 1824. 55 denial freedom" wholly basis—the speak scrutiny of, for, "supportable" divorce. 56 my view, start domestic "an regarded virtually province States." 532 (1975). regulation, initially ecclesiastical authorities, secular state. early Pennoyer Neff, 714, 734-735, 565 (1878), prescribe conditions own shall created, causes dissolved." representing collective expression moral aspirations, undeniable rules reflect widely people. 57 "Marriage, morals institution, always legislature. body prescribes age contract procedure duties creates, effects property both, prospective, acts dissolution." 58 included bans incest, bigamy, homosexuality, well various preconditions blood tests. Likewise, fault partners dissolution unsuccessful union. purpose" cast doubt network fashioned govern 59 limits. "when intrudes choices concerning arrangements" manner contrary deeply rooted traditions. Ohio, 503-504, 1936, 1937-1939, (1977) (plurality 842-847, 2109-2112, constraints monopolize excluding 113 (1971). Furthermore, chosen bear 'a relation' object legislation. Reed Reed, 404 71, 76, 251, 254, 225 Royster Guano Co. 253 412, 415, 560, 561, 989 (1920); Craig Boren, 210-211, 451, 463-464, 397 (1976) (Powell, concurring). measure pass muster identifies three supposedly furthered question: (i) function; (ii) outstanding (iii) deterrent amply asserted objective 388-389. discussion here. 61 so-called presents somewhat difficult question. condition satisfaction existing methods compelling wish shirk obligation, interposes bar mechanism. vice inheres, concept, provision Harlan's Connecticut. struck pay, "that not, consistent pre-empt affording prescribed doing so." 383, 789. monopolization total, foreign fail conform 245.10.2 third justification, obliquely appellant, preserves objective, given quite apart "does legislation." 464 447-450, 1029, 1035-1037, 349 (1972); cf. 499-500, 1935-1936 63 submit demonstrate—in unspecified way—that charges."3 "fail alleviate consequences differences exist action." Griffin 351 34, 76 598, 100 891 (1956) dissenting). tells charges danger go assistance future.4 Apparently, jurisdiction embraced approach method number assistance. Because unprecedented foreclosure indigency, STEVENS, 65 tension 1977, exposition reasons why necessary. 66 allocates burdens, valid treating unmarried differently. Classification based accepted characteristic tax legislation, Selective Service rules, demonstrate, relationship." kind interference, sufficient reflecting judgm nt relevant class.1 fundamentally different determines relationship.2 making independently merit special 599-600, 64. immune evenhanded prohibiting close relative, afflicted unchallenged though "interfere marry." 387. character. 68 eligibility noncustodial parent whose "public charges" court-ordered obligations.3 rich not. type discrimination believe, totally unprecedented,4 tradition administering justice equally poor.5 appears demonstrated offspring world.6 putting side growing childless burgeoning sort reasoning deliberate poor. 70 impoverished marrying spouses economically independent. Legislature assumed fathers employed women. assumption ignores sometimes awarded custody,7 second composition today's work force.8 hard-pressed ease aggravate straits, rests unreliable premises, defeats objectives. questionable assumptions explain blunderbuss wide target respect. prohibition leave. strain inadequate budget great custodial non-custodial parents, assumes mothers ever 72 Characteristically, fails regulate family, poorest objects orders.9 meant overlooked obvious targets concern. 73 sum, public-charge futile perverse insofar couples, couples forbidden improved event. grounds, clumsy withstand Amendment.10 74 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 75 Brother POWELL's rejecting conclusion invariably trigger strictest disagree imposition "intermediate" standard review, leads conclude "additional mechanism" "failure obligations." 400. reasons, STEWART's exempt "simply requirements." 394. view light presumption validity. need "rational test," Dandridge Williams, 471, 485, 1153, 1161, 491 (1970), shown objective. Williamson Lee Optical 348 483, 491, 461, 466, 99 563 (1955); Ferguson Skrupa, 372 733, 83 1028, 1032, (1963) assure despite possible imprecision envisioned opinions. Earlier review situation considered permanently disabled terminated beneficiary Act. Congress, original benefit, reasonably adult remained dependent support. beneficiary's Congress terminate benefits, "there about validity less unmarried." 53, 99. proved false nevertheless rational. judged reference characteristics typical focusing selected, atypical examples." 55, 100. Here, too, "adopted rule course constructing complex necessarily intimacies life." 11, amount funds needy exceptionally strong securing much pay. Nor differentiate warrant result. applicants, proposed impossible reasons; cases, practically reasons. conc ude difference justifies heightened short, imperfections, demands Two opinions seem (STEWART, J.); ante, 400 (POWELL, J.). could, suppose, forbid willfully failed contribute "selected, examples," 100, refuse sanction 79 well-established standing, litigant assert "[A] challenge conceivably unconstitutionally situations Court." Broadrick 413 601, 610, 2908, 2915, 830 Barrows Jackson, 346 249, 256-257, 1031, 1035, 1586 (1953). exception First allowing invalidation facially overbroad guard chilling speech. Coates Cincinnati, 402 611, 1686, 214 80 Appellee's standing contest conceded, requiring proof, "[f]rom [appellee] sum issue." App. 21. time 30, rendered All know counsel's concession demonstrating knows how deems important. inartfully said, now, incapable discharging remove rolls. Therefore, taken judgment, him. 81 indigency preclude represent.* moot, bound dismiss consider variety factors proceed. Kremens Bartley, 119, 129-135, 1709, 715-1718, 184 explicitly determined considerations apply own. Allee Medrano, 416 802, 828-829, 2191, 2207, 566 (Burger, am content save day. 82 reverse Wis onsin Stat. pertinent part: "(1) made. order. court, verified proceeding, hearing matter allow obligation. granted, held, appear, person, agency, department entity actual service copy hearing, appearance waived good cause shown, 5-day thereof commissioner sought, attend clerk court. Upon grant thereby; otherwise withheld submitted made, appealable Any records disclosure resources complied orders judgments affecting permitting clerk. "(4) minor, stated sub. (1), wishes state, must, ordered party domiciled hearing. judge send stating support, present. "(5) extraterritorial outside state; s. 245.04(1) (2) [providing out-of-state circumvent void] hereto. section, void, elsewhere." penalties 245.30(1)(f) Mueller, Wis.2d 387, 171 N.W.2d (1969) (upholding prosecution 245.10). employment 1974. "[m]arriage validly solemnized [within the] therefor," 245.16 (with here) resided immediately 245.05. follows: "All Wis.Stats. (1971)." briefing schedule motion class. motion, opposition. 1064-1065. abstention raised sua sponte, subsequently memorandum contending required; response. argues, appeal, "doctrine federalism" Huffman. According consideration led suit courts, give initial attack agree. correct inapplicable, Wooley Maynard, 710-711, 1428, 1433, 752 ambiguities resolve, and—absent issues posture claims—this uniformly 1983 claims forum. Constantineau, 433, 437-439, 507, 511, 515 (1971); Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 245-252, 391, 393-397, 444 609-610, 21, 1211. contends time, abstained "regard independence governments carrying policy." Brief 16, citing Burford Sun Oil 319 315, 317-318, 1098, 1098-1100, 1424 (1943). Burford, involve resolution "disruptive efforts coherent policy concern." Colorado River Water Conservation States, 800, 814-815, 1236, 1245, 483 overturning policy. F.Supp., 1065-1068. appealed definition Wisconsin, requirement each clerks, therefore us. binding them. framed, perceive "personal stake outcome," Baker Carr, 369 186, 204, 691, 703, 663 (1962), lacks claim. bound, judgment's injured action. Indeed, opposition invited briefed General took lead circumstances, themselves, through collateral otherwise. Hansberry Lee, 311 32, 115, (1940); Advisory Committee Notes 1966 App., p. 7768, F.R.D. 69, 106, Restatement Judgments 86, Comment (h), 116 note, event, disposition revision Family Code, 9, infra, academic. 1068-1071. found applying strict discriminates wealth, 1070, 1289, 1071-1073. Counsel informed Illinois merits 30-31. development moots unaffected, still (5). (§ residents). claim, dispute live represents, place certified. Franks Bowman Transp. 747, 752-757, 1251, 1258-1261, 397-403, 556-559, Acting Governor signed comprehensive laws, 1977 Wis.Laws, ch. 105, Wis.Legis.Serv. (West 1977). added 245.105) narrower version Enactment moot terms, "shall utilization procedures, thereunder stayed court." 245.105(8). read unusual proviso, explained General, 4-10, serve stopgap enforcement barred Were vacate injunction back full force effect; live. express section. Further dealing cases. wrote "marriage involves society," 376, 785, violated indigents fees. later, Kras, 409 434, 631, 626 bankruptcy distinguished including following: forum touched associational surround establishment Virginia 444, 637. 446, 638 ("Bankruptcy akin SPEECH OR MARRIAGE [,] RIGHTS come fundamental"). punishes fornication offense: "Whoever intercourse fined $200 imprisoned months both." 944.15 directness substantiality distinguish sections providing, inter alia, termination entitled noted, terminating attempt marriage." obstacle path desiring get and—notwithstanding REHNQUIST's imaginative recasting dissenting opinion, post, 408—there discouraged, let alone "practically impossible," deterred wife disabled. 48, 96. 57, 101 (because availability Jobsts $20 Jobst's terminated). Legislative Council Notes, 1959, reprinted following Wis.Stat.Ann. (Supp.1977-1978); Council, Report (1959). ibid. enacted 1959 permission, "good cause" absence met. 595, 17. 1961, good-cause deleted, added. 1961 11. 247.232 (wage assignment), 247.265 (same), 295.03 (civil contempt). Support civilly 52.21(2) assignment) 52.40 52.39. conviction felony offense abandonment 52.05, misdemeanor 52.055. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions Applied Judicial Reasoning, Yale L.J. (1913). text surrounding lightly intrude, blocks entry bond. Henkin, Privacy Autonomy, Colum.L.Rev. 1410, 1429-1432 "as applied" challenge; face. ordinary permit demonstrate bona fides [their] indigency," 382, 788. question, contain severability clause, specific contingency "utilization procedures [under be] event stay 1978, (Wis.Stat. 245.105(3)), 1977), "permission remarry likewise petitioner convincing support." Rehnquist suggests longer "incapable rolls." Post, 410. speculation. license, "was 1976, "[i]n Redhail's poverty action, hence, m rry." (E.D.Wis.). factual predicate trial determination, intimated materially. matters, inquired local companion Leipzig Pallamolla, 1073 (E.D.Wis.1976), four received benefits. Quite "confer judge] arbitrary procedure," 1045, 1053, (1966), determination "likely procedural feature standardless discretion, particularly hazards area. pointed "it test dependency explained: "Both common experience normally marks change status. Traditionally, attendant responsibilities, modifies pre-existing bride groom respective families. Frequently, hand hand. Nevertheless, former category; latter. POWELL demonstrates, defect invalidates entire 2. aspects unquestionably assess independently. seriously limitation predicated status, answered explains member judiciary sworn affirmed "do 453. charge" provision, falls faithfully enough rolls, absurd contend supports ban itself provided: "In remain, best prefer sex parent." 247.24(3) Plainly, product habitual thinking male female roles "rather reflection." Goldfarb, 199, 222, 1021, 1034, 270 (STEVENS, precedents scarce, general heavily influenced parent's Clark, Law Domestic Relations 496 (1968); Miller Miller, 435, 227 earn sued, granted. Ponath Hedrick, 126 (1964) (social security relative's payments). Neither protected, "level unconstitutionality foreordained. hand, presence precludes expectation occasional random c nstitutional command impartially. 464, (Stevens, Ordinarily, "a 'possess injury' members." Texas Motor Freight 403, 1891, 1896, 453 Schlesinger Reservists Stop War, 216, 2925, 2929, 706 properly raised, appellate representative's maintained. Donaldson Pillsbury 554 F.2d 825, 831-832, (CA8 1977); Texas, 1898. instances, eliminate adequately represent. La Mar H B Novelty Loan 489 461 (CA9 1973). dismissal altogether, inexplicably

Category: 1