Levy v. Louisiana, No. 508

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DOUGLAS
• Citation: 88 S.Ct. 1509,391 U.S. 68,20 L.Ed.2d 436
• Decision Date: 20 May 1968
• Docket Number: No. 508
• Parties: Thelma LEVY, etc., Appellant, v. LOUISIANA, etc., et al

391 U.S. 68 88 S.Ct. 1509 20 L.Ed.2d 436 Thelma LEVY, etc., Appellant,

v.

LOUISIANA, etc., et al.

No. 508. Decided May 20, 1968. May 20, 1968. Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1968.

See 89 S.Ct. 65.

Norman Dorsen, New York City, for appellant.

William A. Porteous, III, New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Page 69

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant sued on behalf of five illegitimate children to recover, under a Louisiana statute.¹ (La.Civ.Code Ann. Art. 2315 (Supp.1967)) for two kinds of damages as a result of the wrongful death of their mother: (1) the damages to them for the loss of their mother;

Page 70

and (2) those based on the survival of a cause of action which the mother had at the time of her death for pain and suffering. Appellees² are the doctor who treated her and the insurance company.

We assume in the present state of the pleadings that the mother, Louise Levy, gave birth to these five illegitimate children and that they lived with her; that she treated them as a parent would treat any other child; that she worked as a domestic servant to support them, taking them to church every Sunday and enrolling them, at her own expense, in a parochial school. The Louisiana District Court dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that 'child' in Article 2315 means 'legitimate child,' the denial to illegitimate children of 'the right to recover' being 'based on morals and general welfare because it discourages bringing children into the world out of wedlock.' 192 So.2d 193, 195. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied certiorari. 250 La. 25, 193 So.2d 530.

The case is here on appeal (28 U.S.C. § 1257(2)); and we noted probable jurisdiction, 389 U.S. 925, 88 S.Ct. 290, 19 l.Ed.2d 276, the statute as construed having been sustained against challenge under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not 'nonpersons.' They are humans, live, and have their being.³ They are clearly 'persons' within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ⁴

Page 71

While a State has broad power when it comes to making classifications (Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 732, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 1032, 10 L.Ed.2d 93), it may not draw a line which constitutes an invidious discrimination against a particular class. See Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541—542, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113—1114, 86 L.Ed. 1655. Though the test has been variously stated, the end result is whether the line drawn is a rational one. See Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 465—466, 77 S.Ct. 1344, 1349—1351, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485.

In applying the Equal Protection Clause to social and economic legistion, we give great latitude to the legislature in makig classifications. Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 S.Ct. 461, 465, 99 L.Ed. 563; Morey v. Doud, supra, 354 U.S., at 465—466, 77 S.Ct., at 1349—1351. Even so, would a corporation, which is a 'person,' for certain purposes, within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause (Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 188, 8 S.Ct. 737, 740, 31 L.Ed. 650) be required to forgo recovery for wrongs done its interests because its incorporators were all bastards? However that might be, we have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights (Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S., at 541, 62 S.Ct., at 1113; Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 669—670, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 1082 1083, 16 L.Ed.2d 169) and have not hesitated to strike down an invidious classification even though it had history and...