An Introduction to Notorious Family Law Cases
As a subject of legal study and practice, family law has traditionally focused on the regulation of domestic relations and the settlement of domestic disputes. As a result, this area of the law may at first seem unworthy of the attention that many early Supreme Court proponents bestowed on it. While the landmark cases that have been accepted for review over the years are not necessarily extensive in number, they are certainly influential in scope. They are often the very same cases which ultimately serve to define the niche of practice for many prospective family law attorneys.
Rather than merely serving as a vast reservoir of experience for the purposes of accomplishing satisfying results for clients , landmark family law cases also serve as a microcosm of the evolution of family law itself. Familiarity with the fundamental Supreme Court cases of family law serves to deepen the appreciation that practitioners and the general public can derive from the understanding of how a particular area of law conforms to and interacts with the historical forces that have shaped our society.
For example, the issues underlying the root cases of prime significance in family law are just as prevalent today as they were when they were decided. Most notably, the matters of marital property rights and the ability of the state to regulate sexual relationships were no less pressing 20 years ago than they are now.
The Changes Brought on By: Loving v. Virginia
A year later, in 1967, the Supreme Court would decide the sweeping interracial marriage case, Loving v. Virginia. The Lovings’ action did not occur in a vacuum. It was situated in post-World War II America, where racial segregation and discrimination were common, and interracial couples faced not just stigma, but criminalization. Recruits who fought against fascism in Europe often when they returned home encountered pervasive discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws. And, as noted by the Encyclopedia Virginia, "White supremacists, such as the Ku Klux Klan, terrorized African Americans and their allies. That was the world in which Richard and Mildred Loving were born and grew up." After interracial marriage was criminalized in Virginia in 1924, Richard was arrested for marrying Mildred in Washington, D.C. in 1958. In 1959, the lower courts upheld the constitutionality of that law, even finding, in essence, that the Lovings deserved the punishment meted out to them. But when the case reached the Supreme Court, the decision came down unanimously to strike down all laws banning interracial marriage as unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. In striking down the laws, Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…Prohibitions against interracial marriages are designed to maintain White Supremacy." As of today, racial intermarriage rates are 15 percent, according to Pew Research. The case, and its resulting decision, had a broad impact. For example, the case also set the legal precedent for invalidating bans on same-sex marriage. In 2016, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
How Roe v. Wade Altered Family Law
Another Supreme Court case that has had a tremendous impact on family law is Roe v. Wade. This landmark 1973 decision essentially ruled that state laws against abortion during the first two trimesters were unconstitutional because a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy was deemed constitutionally protected. In 1972, a pregnant woman in Texas, "Jane Roe", sought to terminate her pregnancy, she challenged the relevant Texas laws that criminalized most abortions. Roe contended that the Texas laws violated not only her constitutional right to privacy but also her human right. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 opinion, decided in Roe’s favor, writing "The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision." While Roe v. Wade did not give women an unrestricted right to abortions, it did give them a measure of control over their family planning and the autonomy to make their own health care decisions independently of the state’s interest in regulating medical care and the family unit. Roe v. Wade, and its subsequent related decisions, have had a significant impact on the American landscape and have influenced various aspects regarding a person’s reproductive rights, contraception rights, and issues arising in areas of family law. Numerous other cases have been based on Roe v. Wade, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey in which the Supreme Court upheld Roe’s basic principle that the state cannot interfere with a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy when it’s in the first trimester. Generally, women are not required to seek parental consent or counsel regarding abortion in the first trimester. After the first trimester, states can impose restrictions or regulations as long as the health interests of the mother are taken into consideration. However, once the fetus can survive outside the womb (approximately the third trimester), the state can ban abortions except when the mother’s life or health are at risk. If we look at the international impact of Roe v. Wade, we see that various foreign legal systems have been impacted by it, and many foreign courts have authorized abortion at least during the first two trimesters (i.e. all of Canada). And there are many countries where all abortions are banned. What’s certain is that the legality surrounding abortion will continue to evolve as time progresses and will certainly remain a politically charged issue.
Examining the Shift Known as Obergefell v. Hodges
In 2015, the United States Supreme Court delivered another landmark opinion that would eventually transform family law and society at large: Obergefell v. Hodges. A combined 14 same-sex marriage cases made their way to the High Court from four different states: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The question before the Court was relatively straightforward but omnipresent throughout the history of family law: whether the Constitution allows a state to refuse same-sex couples the right to marry or to have that marriage recognized in another state. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened the Court’s opinion by immediately addressing the stigma that same-sex couples faced as a result of state prohibitions on their marriage rights. Justice Kennedy explained "The generations-long exclusion of same-sex couples from the marriage right teaches that a necessary constitutional right in our nation’s heritage can be denied to same-sex couples or those who enter into same-sex unions for the sole reason of whom they choose to love." In a 5-4 vote, the Court held that states are prohibited from denying same-sex couples the right to marry as well as the recognition of that marriage performed in other jurisdictions. The Court used equal protection and due process to find that the Constitution does not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Although this case featured multiple consolidated cases and opinions, Justice Kennedy’s opinion provided the most authoritative discussion of the Court’s reasoning. This watershed ruling changed the face of not only federal statutes that prohibited same-sex marriage, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but countless state constitutions across the country that explicitly defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The application of the Obergefell ruling transcended the realm of the law, however. Today, LGBTQ+ persons take pride in legal protections and rights upon which they had been denied for years.
Troxel v. Granville’s Custody Ruling
In 2000, the landmark case of Troxel v. Granville was decided, which addressed the rights of parents vs. the rights of third-party visitation. The facts of the case were as follows: parents of minor children (father and grandmother) had started an action in Washington to obtain visitation with the grandmother and maternal grandfather by way of a petition for grandparental visitation rights under a Washington State law. Both the Superior Court and Washington Supreme Court held that "the statute interfered with parents’ fundamental constitutional right to raise their children; consequently, imposed visitation against the parents’ wishes." In order to clarify parental rights vs. custodial grandparents rights, the U.S . Supreme Court held that: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a state to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child-rearing decisions without providing a fair process, even if a state statute’s standard for granting visitation to such other person is facially adequate…(T)he State may elect not to intervene in the private realm of the family, a function it may perform only in the presence of a significant state interest…(T)here is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. The function of the State, in respect to these parents and children, is to aid in the tilling of that private soil, and to act in the pacific interest of the country. Clearly, Troxel v. Granville changed the landscape of custody. As a result, more and more grandparents are being awarded visitation on a general basis.
Celebrity Divorce and Its Impact
Screen sirens, rock stars, and pro-athletes have all triggered the public’s obsessive fascination with their celebrity divorces. A celebrity divorce is a mainstream media hit. "Gossip" outlets achieve more views and interaction on their sites from a juicy headline filled with provocative language than from articles with studious headlines and substantive legal information.
The international news coverage of a celebrity divorce may be overwhelming. Commentators from all media backgrounds hone in on details of the relationship too saucy or sordid to remain private. Photos get rehashed and re-posted; the accounts of the spouses get dissected to determine who’s the good parent or whose fault it was, frequently without understanding the full story.
The public rarely sees these marriages on their way to a down-beat divorce. The unraveling of a celebrity’s marriage is not an exclusive topic for the tabloids. Fans and followers must painfully accept the collapse of the image they saw.
While high-visibility celebrity divorces have helped produce the family law landscape we have today, their presence in the media has also shaped how the public views divorce, divorce mediators and lawyers. What benefits have high-profile divorces provided, and what damage have they caused? What changes in family law have they helped to bring about? Which ongoing legal trends have they have perpetuated?
The current wave of celebrity divorces have mostly moved away from the "media circus" of yesteryear. In fact, the recent divorce of a popular singer and actor was openly documented on social media and by traditional media, albeit with detaileld and respectful accounts by multiple reputable journalists. It is questionable whether or not this use of the media made for more transparency pertaining to the divorce process itself, and whether there was any lesson for the public to learn from the open-book portrayal of a painful full family breakup.
Conclusion: Lessons From The Past
These landmark cases have not only defined individual families, but also the legal landscape in which they existed – and continue to exist. The ways that the courts of the past addressed conflicts involving paternity, custody, divorce, child abuse, and international marriage have shaped the process that these issues are addressed in courts today.
With the impact that even the earlier cases have had, it is important to consider how the most recent cases may continue to shape law in the future . Surrogacy, for example, will likely be addressed again as national policy changes. As more states recognize same-sex relationships, there will continue to be a renewed focus on the technicalities of marriage that affect same-sex couples.
If any lessons are to be learned from history, we should expect law to evolve with the times. Keeping up with these changes is crucial to maintaining the most fair and equitable treatment of every family.