Boddie v. Connecticut, No. 27

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHARLAN
Citation91 S.Ct. 780,401 U.S. 371,28 L.Ed.2d 113
PartiesGladys BODDIE et al., Appellants, v. State of CONNECTICUT et al
Docket NumberNo. 27
Decision Date08 December 1969

401 U.S. 371
91 S.Ct. 780
28 L.Ed.2d 113
Gladys BODDIE et al., Appellants,

v.

State of CONNECTICUT et al.

No. 27.
Argued Dec. 8, 1969.
Reargued Nov. 17, 1970.
Decided March 2, 1971.

Syllabus

In view of the basic position of the marriage relationship in our society and the state monopolization of the means for dissolving that relationship, due process of law prohibits a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay court fees and costs, access to its courts to indigents who, in good faith, seek judicial dissolution of their marriage. Pp. 374—383.

286 F.Supp. 968, reversed.

Arthur B. LaFrance, New Haven, Conn., for appellants.

Raymond J. Cannon, Hartford, Conn., for appellees.

Page 372

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellants, welfare recipients residing in the State of Connecticut, brought this action in the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, challenging, as applied to them, certain state procedures for the commencement of litigation, including requirements for payment of court fees and costs for service of process, that restrict their access to the courts in their effort to bring an action for divorce.

It appears from the briefs and oral argument that the average cost to a litigant for bringing an action for divorce is $60. Section 52—259 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides: 'There shall be paid to the clerks of the supreme court or the superior court, for entering each civil cause, forty-five dollars * * *.' An additional $15 is usually required for the service of process by the sheriff, although as much as $40 or $50 may be necessary where notice must be accomplished by publication.1

There is no dispute as to the inability of the named appellants in the present case to pay either the court fees required by statute or the cost incurred for the service of process. The affidavits in the record establish that appellants' welfare income in each instance barely suffices

Page 373

to meet the costs of the daily essentials of life and includes no allotment that could be budgeted for the expense to gain access to the courts in order to obtain a divorce. Also undisputed is appellants' 'good faith' in seeking a divorce.

Assuming, as we must on this motion to dismiss the complaint, the truth of the undisputed allegations made by the appellants, it appears that they were unsuccessful in their attempt to bring their divorce actions in the Connecticut courts, simply by reason of their indigency. The clerk of the Superior Court returned their papers 'on the ground that he could not accept them until an entry fee had been paid.' App. 8—9. Subsequent efforts to obtain a judicial waiver of the fee requirement and to have the court effect service of process were to no avail. Id., at 9.

Appellants thereafter commenced this action in the Federal District Court seeking a judgment declaring that Connecticut's statute and service of process provisions, 'requiring payment of court fees and expenses as a condition precedent to obtaining court relief (are) unconstitutional (as) applied to these indigent (appellants) and all other members of the class which they represent.' As further relief, appellants requested the entry of an injunction ordering the appropriate officials to permit them 'to proceed with their divorce actions without payment of fees and costs.' A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, and on July 16, 1968, that court concluded that 'a state (may) limit access to its civil courts and particularly in this instance, to its divorce courts, by the requirement of a filing fee or other fees which effectively bar persons on relief from commencing actions therein.' 286 F.Supp. 968, 972.

We noted probable jurisdiction, 395 U.S. 974, 89 S.Ct. 2138, 23 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969). The case was heard at the 1969 Term and thereafter was

Page 374

set for reargument at the present Term. 399 U.S. 922, 90 S.Ct. 2229, 26 L.Ed.2d 788 (1970). We now reverse.2 Our conclusion is that, given the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society's hierarchy of values and the concomitant state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship, due process does prohibit a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to its courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages.

I

At its core, the right to due process reflects a fundamental value in our American constitutional system. Our understanding of the value is the basis upon which we have resolved this case.

Perhaps no characteristic of an organized and cohesive society is more fundamental than its erection and enforcement of a system of rules defining the various rights and duties of its members, enabling them to govern their affairs and definitively settle their differences in an orderly, predictable manner. Without such a 'legal system,' social organization and cohesion are virtually impossible; with the ability to seek regularized resolution of conflicts individuals are capable of interdependent action that enables them to strive for achievements without the anxieties that would beset them in a disorganized society. Put more succinctly, it is this injection of the rule of law that allows society to reap the benefits of rejecting what political theorists call the 'state of nature.'

Page 375

American society, of course, bottoms its systematic definition of individual rights and duties, as well as its machinery for dispute settlement, not on custom or the will of strategically placed individuals, but on the common-law model. It is to courts, or other quasi-judicial official bodies, that we ultimately look for the implementation of a regularized, orderly process of dispute settlement. Within this framework, those who wrote our original Constitution, in the Fifth Amendment, and later those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment recognized the centrality of the concept of due process in the operation of this system. Without this guarantee that one may not be deprived of his rights, neither liberty nor property, without due process of law, the State's monopoly over techniques for binding conflict resolution could hardly be said to be acceptable under our scheme of things. Only by providing that the social enforcement mechanism must function strictly within these bounds can we hope to maintain an ordered society that is also just. It is upon this premise that this Court has through years of adjudication put flesh upon the due process principle.

Such litigation has, however, typically involved rights of defendants—not, as here, persons seeking access to the judicial process in the first instance. This is because our society has been so structured that resort to the courts is not usually the only available, legitimate means of resolving private disputes. Indeed, private structuring of individual relationships and repair of their breach is largely encouraged in American life, subject only to the caveat that the formal judicial process, if resorted to, is paramount. Thus, this Court has seldom been asked to view access to the courts as an element of due process. The legitimacy of the State's monopoly over techniques of final dispute settlement, even where

Page 376

some are denied access to its use, stands unimpaired where recognized, effective alternatives for the adjustment of differences remain. But the successful invocation of this governmental power by plaintiffs has often created serious problems for defendants' rights. For at that point, the judicial proceeding becomes the only effective means of resolving the dispute at hand and denial of a defendant's full access to that process raises grave problems for its legitimacy.

Recognition of this theoretical framework illuminates the precise issue presented in this case. As this Court on more than one occasion has recognized, marriage involves interests of basic importance in our society. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); Skinner v. Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). It is not surprising, then, that the States have seen fit to oversee many aspects of that institution. Without a prior judicial imprimatur, individuals may freely enter into and rescind commercial contracts, for example, but we are unaware of any jurisdiction where private citizens may covenant for or dissolve marriages without state approval. Even where all substantive requirements are concededly met, we know of no instance where two consenting adults may divorce and mutually liberate themselves from the constraints of legal obligations that go with marriage, and more fundamentally the prohibition against remarriage, without invoking the State's judicial machinery.

Thus, although they assert here due process rights as would-be plaintiffs, we think appellants' plight, because resort to the state courts is the only avenue to dissolution of their marriages, is akin to that of defendants faced with exclusion from the only forum effectively empowered to settle their disputes. Resort to the judicial process by these plaintiffs is no more voluntary in a realistic sense than that of the defendant called upon to

Page 377

defend his interests in court. For both groups this process is not only the paramount dispute-settlement technique, but, in fact, the only available one. In this posture we think that this appeal is properly to be resolved in light of the principles enunciated in our due process decisions that delimit rights of defendants compelled to litigate their differences in the judicial forum.

II

These due process decisions, representing over a hundred years of effort by this Court to give concrete embodiment to this concept, provide, we think, complete vindication for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2515 practice notes
  • Hunter v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, Civ. No. 96-848 (WGB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • August 27, 1996
    ...Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1492, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971). The type of predeprivation hearing required by the due process clause varies with the nature of th......
  • Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp. v. Larson, No. 18-2071
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 11, 2019
    ...a defendant ... who, without justifiable excuse, violates a procedural rule requiring the production of evidence." Boddie v. Connecticut , 401 U.S. 371, 378, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) ; Davis v. Hutchins , 321 F.3d 641, 645–46 (7th Cir. 2003). If, by contrast, a defendant lacked n......
  • BJRL v. State of Utah, Civ. No. C86-324G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • January 28, 1987
    ...motion to dismiss those claims is denied.7 V. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM—PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS The Supreme Court in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377, 91 S.Ct. 780, 785, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) discussed the meaning of procedural due Prior cases establish, first, that due process requires, ......
  • Gomez v. Wilson, No. 71-1484.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 23, 1973
    ...of guaranteed rights is about to be withdrawn. See, e. g., Washington Post, February 17, 1973, A1 col. 1. 31 See Boddie v. State of Conn., 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 32 See notes 23 and 24, supra, and accompanying text. --------...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2516 cases
  • Hunter v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, Civ. No. 96-848 (WGB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • August 27, 1996
    ...Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1492, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971). The type of predeprivation hearing required by the due process clause varies with the nature of th......
  • Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp. v. Larson, No. 18-2071
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 11, 2019
    ...a defendant ... who, without justifiable excuse, violates a procedural rule requiring the production of evidence." Boddie v. Connecticut , 401 U.S. 371, 378, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) ; Davis v. Hutchins , 321 F.3d 641, 645–46 (7th Cir. 2003). If, by contrast, a defendant lacked n......
  • BJRL v. State of Utah, Civ. No. C86-324G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • January 28, 1987
    ...motion to dismiss those claims is denied.7 V. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM—PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS The Supreme Court in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377, 91 S.Ct. 780, 785, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) discussed the meaning of procedural due Prior cases establish, first, that due process requires, ......
  • Gomez v. Wilson, No. 71-1484.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 23, 1973
    ...of guaranteed rights is about to be withdrawn. See, e. g., Washington Post, February 17, 1973, A1 col. 1. 31 See Boddie v. State of Conn., 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 32 See notes 23 and 24, supra, and accompanying text. --------...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Schoolhouse Property.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...420, 442 (1960) (explaining that the specific procedure required "varies according to specific factual contexts"); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,378 (1971) ("The formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests involved.... (......
  • Post-Tenure Review and Just-Cause Termination in U.S. Public Institutions of Higher Learning: A Legalistic Examination
    • United States
    • Public Personnel Management Nbr. 41-1, March 2012
    • March 1, 2012
    ...Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 569-570; Perry v. Sinderman (1972), 599; Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971),542; Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), 379. 83 Perry v. Sinderman (1972), 84 Frye v. Memphis State University, 806 S.W.2d 170 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1991); Texas Faculty Associat......
  • Distributing Civil Justice
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 109-6, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...200, at 13. 210. See RAZ, supra note 38, at 172–75, 193–94. 211. See supra note 189 and accompanying text. 212. See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 375 (1971) (recognizing “the State’s monopoly over techniques for binding conf‌lict resolution” and “f‌inal dispute settlement”); RAZ, sup......
  • The Supreme Court of the United States, 1970-1971
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 24-4, December 1971
    • December 1, 1971
    ...access without payment of fees and costs in actions for divorce under a ruling by the Court in Boddie v. Connecticut (401U.S. 371; 91 S. Ct. 780). The opinion by Justice Harlan (vote 8-1, Black dissent-ing) concluded that the state &dquo;owes to each individual that process which, in lighto......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT