Constitutional Law (Aspen Casebook) by Erwin Chemerinsky

Author:Erwin Chemerinsky [Chemerinsky, Erwin]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Wolters Kluwer
Published: 2013-06-05T04:00:00+00:00

LAWS THAT PROVIDE A BENEFIT TO SOME NONMARITAL CHILDREN

No similar bright-line rule exists when the law provides a benefit to some nonmarital children that it denies to other nonmarital children. In other words, rather than discriminating between marital and nonmarital children, these laws distinguish among nonmarital children. Such statutes are subjected to intermediate scrutiny and evaluated on a case-by-case basis with the courts determining whether there is an important interest served and whether the law is substantially related to that goal.

In Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (1978), the Supreme Court upheld a state law that provided that a nonmarital child could inherit from his or her father only if paternity was established during the father’s lifetime. In other words, some nonmarital children could inherit—those where paternity was established during the father’s life, other nonmarital children could not inherit—where paternity was not so established. The Court said that the state had an important interest in preventing fraud and that requiring paternity to be established during the father’s lifetime was substantially related to that objective.

In Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (1971), the Supreme Court upheld a state law that denied inheritance from a nonmarital father unless the child had been formally acknowledged by the father during the father’s life. Although the Court does not expressly say so, it appears that in Labine, like in Lalli, the Court accepted the state’s argument that requiring paternity to be established in this way is substantially related to the government’s interest in preventing fraud.

Another case upholding a distinction among nonmarital children was Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976). The Supreme Court sustained a provision of the Social Security Act that allowed children to receive survivors’ benefits only if they could establish both paternity and that the father was providing financial support. The law created a presumption of dependency for all marital children and all nonmarital children who were entitled to inherit under state law. The law allowed other nonmarital children to inherit only if they could prove financial dependency on their fathers. The Court found that the distinction among nonmarital children was constitutional because it did not preclude any child from receiving benefits and because it allowed the government to reduce its administrative burdens. Requiring every child to prove dependency would have been a substantial additional burden on the government; allowing all children to inherit without having to prove dependency would have been a greater cost on the government that it was not constitutionally required to absorb.

However, not all laws discriminating among nonmarital children have been upheld. In Jiminez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974), the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the Social Security Act that allowed intestate inheritance of disability benefits by all marital children and by nonmarital children who had been “legitimated.” Other nonmarital children could inherit benefits only if they proved that they were living with or being supported by the father at the time the disability began. In other words, nonmarital children who were neither living with the father nor being supported by him when the disability arose could not get benefits.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.