Califano v. Boles: Unequal Protection for Illegitimate Children and Their Mothers
Introduction
In recent years, the Supreme Court’s stand on the constitutional status of illegitimates has been decidedly ambiguous. In the Court’s early consideration of equal protection claims alleging discrimination against illegitimates, notably Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Levy v. Louisiana, and Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., the Court ostensibly refused to apply to such claims the strict scrutiny afforded claims of discrimination against suspect classes such as race. The Court claimed to be measuring these claims against a mere minimum rationality standard, under which any classification based “upon a state of facts that reasonably can be conceived to constitute a distinction, or difference in [government] policy” would be upheld. In fact, however, the standard against which the Court measured these illegitimacy claims was significantly more strict than that of minimum rationality. Indeed, at least one commentator has argued that in these decisions the Court was actually applying a strict standard of scrutiny despite its reluctance to label illegitimacy as a suspect class. Later decisions, however, such as Mathews v. Lucas and Lalli v. Lalli, have retreated from this stance. The Court in these decisions has upheld the constitutionality of challenged statutes on the grounds that the illegitimacy-based classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest, regardless of whether alternative means exist which might serve that interest with a less discriminatory impact on illegitimates as a class.
Suggested Reading
#SayHerName: Racial Profiling and Police Violence Against Black Women
Andrea J. Ritchie{{Andrea J. Ritchie is a civil rights attorney who has led groundbreaking research, litigation, and advocacy efforts to challenge profiling, policing, and physical and sexual violence by law enforcement against women, girls and LGBTQ people of color for
My Twenty-Twos: Mentoring the Young Men Emerging Community
The kid’s name was Lil’ Yo—well, that’s what all his little buddies called him—and immediately his presence snagged my attention.
Labor Law and the NLRB: Friend or Foe to Labor and Non-Union Workers?
Wilma B. Liebman{{Former Member and Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, 1997-2011; visiting distinguished scholar Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations 2015-17; adjunct faculty, NYU Law School, spring 2015 and 2016. This article is based on remarks at the
Prohibiting Young Adult Life Without Parole: Examining Diminished Capacity and Diminished Culpability
As with juveniles, young adults (18-24) experience a diminished capacity for cognitive processing because the PFC and EFs continue to develop into the mid-20’s. This diminished capacity of young adults must be taken into consideration when sentencing people in this age