Boddie v. Connecticut 401 U.S. 371 (1970)

1
Boddie v. Connecticut401 U.S. 371 (1970)

• Jessica Galant
• Elizabeth Monterrosa

2
Introduction

• Access to the courts is a fundamental right in
  the United States, protecting procedural due
  process guarantees under the Due Process Clauses
  of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
• The many fees imposed on filing a court case can
  encumber the constitutional right to litigate.
• Even insignificant fees can bar an indigent
  litigant from going to court because such fees
  caused substantial economic burden on indigent
  households.

3
The Cost of Divorce in Connecticut

• Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-259
• There shall be paid to the clerks of the supreme
  court of errors or the superior court, for
  entering each civil case, twenty-two dollars
• Divorce Judgments, whether for the plaintiff or
  the defendant, not including judgments annulling
  a marriage, fifty dollars to be charged in all
  cases against the plaintiff
• Modified by Public Act 628
• There shall be to the clerks of the supreme
  court or the superior court, for entering each
  civil case, forty-five dollars
• Service of Process Fee
• Sheriffs service feeMinimum of 10-15
• Publication100 in Hartford and 150 in NYC
• Totala minimum of 60 for a divorce

http//www.uncontested.ca/
4
Historical Context

• Prior to Boddie, the Supreme Court addressed
  obstruction to access to the courts for criminal
  indigent defendants.
• The Griffin v. Illinois case held that an
  indigent litigant must be afforded a transcript
  for a criminal appeal.
• Griffin established the constitutional imperative
  that the quality of ones trial cannot depend on
  how much money one makes.
• However, the decision limited the right to access
  to the courts via fee waivers to criminal
  appeals.

5
Historical Context, cont.

• Federal funding became available under
  the Economic Opportunity
  Act of 1966 and many
  legal services programs sprouted into existence
• E.g. New Haven Legal Assistance Association
• Legal services programs nation-wide embraced and
  promoted a fundamental value for adjudication as
  the alternative to self-help in American society.
• Public interest advocates seeking law reform via
  litigation brought and argued an unprecedented
  number of cases before the Supreme Court.

6
Historical Context, cont.

• 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 emerged
  from dormancy in the 1961 Monroe v. Pape Supreme
  Court case.
• Provided a civil action for deprivation of
  rights.
• Granted private litigants a federal court remedy
  to inadequate state remedies.
• After Monroe, 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of
  1871 played a pivotal role in Fourteenth
  Amendment claims of due process violations.
• Only 10 years after the Monroe decision, the case
  provided the Boddie appellants with a new means,
  federal litigation, to seek law reform.

7
The Boddie PartiesMs. Gladys Boddie

• Served as the named plaintiff in Boddie.
• As a mother on welfare and in public housing, a
  free attorney at New Haven Legal Assistance
  Association provided her only option to obtain
  the divorce she sought.
• Lasted the entire four year case as a named
  plaintiff in Boddie.
• Today resides in Florida
• Two daughters are nurses
• One son is a federal judge
• One son is an attorney, pursuing a judgeship

8
The Boddie AttorneyArthur B. LaFrance

• After working as a criminal specialist for New
  Haven Legal Assistance Association, LaFrance
  found the plaintiffs while managing the
  association
• Today is a professor of law at Lewis and Clark
  Law School in Portland, Oregon
• Specializes in criminal law and procedure
  bioethics health delivery systems and poverty,
  health, and the law.
• Also engages in pro bono
• public interest litigation
• concerning healthcare issues

http//www.lclark.edu/dept/lawadmss/lafrance.html
9
Launching Boddie

• While managing the New Haven Legal Assistance
  Association, LaFrance encountered forty open
  divorce cases.
• Upon contacting the plaintiffs, LaFrance
  discovered they were unable to proceed with their
  divorces because they could not afford the filing
  fees.
• As the architect behind Boddie, LaFrance embarked
  on the difficult process of selecting plaintiffs
  and defendants, and bringing Boddie from the
  state district court to the Supreme Court in a
  valiant effort to transform the law for indigent
  civil plaintiffs
• Launched a class action lawsuit to expand fee
  waivers from the criminal to the civil realm,
  specifically in divorce cases.

10
Finding the Plaintiffs

• LaFrance sought
• Indigent plaintiffs because court costs most
  often impede indigent plaintiffs efforts to
  commence civil litigation.
• African-American plaintiffs to highlight that
  access to justice often proves to be a racial
  issue.
• Non-contested divorces where the grounds for
  divorce and the indigents interest for divorce
  had persisted for several months due to their
  inability to pay initial filing fees because
• Such cases demonstrated the need for law reform
  for indigent plaintiffs seeking divorce
  adjudication via the only available means,
  lengthy litigation proceedings, and ensured that
  the class action stood on strong cases that could
  endure the long judicial process.
• A class action case so that any member of the
  class could take advantage of the judgment and
  the ensure the preservation of the case over the
  many years of the litigation.

11
Finding the Defendants

• Faced problems of sovereign and judicial
  immunity.
• Sued
• The court clerk who initially denied the fee
  waiver.
• 2 Judges, including the judge who claimed he
  could not overrule the court clerk who refused to
  accept the fee waiver that LaFrance tried to file
  for his plaintiffs.
• Not excluded for judicial immunity because the
  case involved an administrative, rather than a
  judicial attack.
• The State of Connecticut
• Excluded due to 11th Amendment sovereign immunity.

12
State Court Decisions

• Plaintiffs filed an application, financial
  affidavits, and divorce papers asking the
  Superior Court for New Haven County to waive
  filing fees and effect service of process.
• The clerk declined to file the papers without
  payment of fees.
• Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Longo declined to
  hear the motion to waive costs and effect service
  of process claiming that he did not have
  statutory authority to grant the relief sought.
• The Court Administrator for Connecticut, Supreme
  Court Justice John P. Cotter, took the same
  position as Judge Longo.

http//www.dochertyfamily.com/ct_flag.htm
13
Federal Court

• As the Plaintiffs were precluded state relief,
  LaFrance brought a civil rights action in the US
  District Court for the District of Connecticut
• Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive
  relief.
• Claim
• Connecticut violated Plaintiffs constitutional
  rights of equal protection of the laws and due
  process of laws by barring them from the courts
  solely on the basis of poverty.

14
The U.S. District Court Decision286 F.Supp. 968

• Holding
• A state may limit access to its civil courts and
  divorce courts via required filing fee or other
  fees which effectively bar persons on relief from
  commencing actions therein.
• Such State-mandated filing fees do not offend the
  Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the
  14th Amendment.
• Distinguished Griffin, a criminal case
• There are differences between the right to
  freedom and the right to access to the court.
• Found that the State has two legitimate bases for
  imposing court fees
• 1. Providing financial support for the court
  establishment
• 2. Discouraging frivolous lawsuits
• Deferred to the state legislature to decide the
  political issue.

15
Appellants Arguments

• The court costs of a divorce proceeding are a
  substantial barrier to litigation.
• These indigent appellants are barred from
  Connecticut courts by their inability to pay
  court costs.
• Appellants were denied equal protection of the
  laws when they were denied access to the courts
  solely because of their poverty.
• Appellants were denied due process of laws when
  they were denied the opportunity to petition for
  redress of grievances.
• Connecticuts requirement that these indigent
  appellants pay court costs which they cannot
  afford is not a permissible exercise of the
  police power.
• The relief sought by appellants could properly
  have been rendered by the court below.

16
Appellees Arguments

• Regulation of entry fees for the Connecticut
  Superior Court is within the exclusive domain of
  the Connecticut Legislature.
• The Griffin doctrine should be limited to cases
  concerning the personal liberty of an accused.
• The prepayment of court entry fees required by
  Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 52-259 is a
  Constitutional exercise of sovereign power.
• The Court should maintain the traditional concept
  that civil litigants are responsible for the
  costs incidental to bringing a legal action.
• The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
  Amendment to the United States Constitution only
  protects rights that are constitutionally
  guaranteed.

17
Boddie, The Supreme Court Decision 401 U.S. 371

• Reversed the District Court judgment below 8-1.
• Justice Harlan delivered the Opinion
• Holding
• Filing fee requirements for divorce proceedings
  are unconstitutional. Noting the fundamental
  nature of the marriage relationship, such fees as
  applied to indigent plaintiffs violate the Due
  Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
  because it denied access to the judicial process
  
• Given the basic position of the marriage
  relationship in this societys 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.
• The Court expanded the Griffin holding to the
  civil filing fee case at hand.

18
Boddie Reasoning

• The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
  requires that a State afford all individuals a
  meaningful opportunity to be heard in the
  judicial process
• A facially-valid cost requirement offended due
  process because it impeded individuals
  opportunity to be heard when applied to indigents
  because the judicial proceedings serve as the
  only effective means of resolving the dispute in
  divorce.

19
Boddie Reasoning, cont.

• Therefore, given the fundamental right to
  marriage, a State may not pre-empt the right to
  dissolve this legal relationship without
  affording all citizens access to the means it has
  prescribed for doing so.
• Because the judicial proceedings serve as the
  only effective means of resolving the dispute, a
  State cannot constitutionally deny indigent
  plaintiffs access to the courts via filing fees
  in divorce proceedings.

20
Justice Douglass Concurrence

• Found that indigent divorce plaintiffs fell
  within a protected class under the Equal
  Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
• Therefore, the Equal Protection Clause would more
  properly shield indigent divorce plaintiffs from
  required filing fees and other fees.

21
Justice Brennans Concurrence

• A States fee requirement as applied to indigent
  plaintiffs in any civil case makes a mockery of
  the Equal Protection principle by denying access
  to the judicial process.

22
Justice Blacks Sole Dissent

• Found no basis for expanding criminal fee waivers
  from criminal defendants mandated to appear
  before the court to civil plaintiffs in divorce
  cases under either the Due Process or Equal
  Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

23
Effects of BoddieParties and Attorney

• The Plaintiffs generally
• Because litigation spanned three to four years,
  the holding had only an inconsequential effect on
  the plaintiffs. However, it pleased all
  plaintiffs that they had played a pivotal role in
  changing the law for future divorce litigants.
• Out of the nine plaintiffs, only two remained
  until the Supreme Court handed down the Boddie
  decision. The seven others had found ways to
  get the filing fee money and proceed with their
  divorce cases.

24
Effects of BoddieParties and Attorney, Cont.

• Ms. Gladys Boddie
• Boddie finally received her long-sought divorce.
• However, by the time of the judicial victory,
  Boddie had to pay the divorce filing fee because
  she was working as a nurses aid and did not
  qualify for the fee waiver.
• Unfortunately, Ms. Boddie did not understand the
  significance of the case until her son attended
  law school and encountered the case and playful
  bantering from fellow law students.

25
Effects of BoddieParties and Attorney, Cont.

• The Boddie Legacy, Mr. Reginald Boddie
• Mr. Boddies desire to engage in public interest
  law stems from his mothers mission against
  injustice and the dilapidated public housing
  conditions that the family endured during the
  time of the Boddie case.
• Although the legal community credits Ms. Boddie
  for her participation in the landmark divorce fee
  waiver case, the local New Haven community
  remembers Ms. Boddie for her tenant advocacy.
• While Mr. Boddie does not credit his mothers
  participation in Boddie as the catalyst for his
  legal advocacy, he credits his mother for
  instilling a sense of social consciousness and
  responsibility within each of her children.

26
Effects of BoddieParties and Attorney, Cont.

• The Boddie Legacy, Mr. Reginald Boddie, cont.
• Following in his mothers footsteps, Mr. Boddie
  has accumulated an impressive track-record in the
  public interest legal services community.
• Boddie attended Northeastern University School of
  Law, a public interest law school, and has
  dedicated his career to the public interest
  generally.
• Boddie has worked at legal assistance
  organizations, where he initially focused on
  low-income housing issues and policy and then
  expanded into civil rights.
• Interestingly, Boddie worked for New Haven Legal
  Assistance Association prior to and during law
  school. He worked in the office's Housing Unit
  for two summers while attending Brown University
  and in the Criminal Law Unit for at least three
  quarters in law school.

27
Effects of BoddieParties and Attorney, Cont.

• Attorney Arthur B. LaFrance
• Effect of Boddie on LaFrance has been personally
  satisfying because he obtained the significant
  legal reform he set out to achieve.
• Several articles were published about the case
  across the country.
• LaFrance received many letters from people asking
  for legal help and LaFrance provided them with
  the number to their local legal aid services.
• Unfortunately, within the legal professional
  realm, members of the Connecticut Bar Association
  who did not value access to justice for indigents
  through fee waivers ostracized LaFrance.

28
Effects of BoddieParties and Attorney, Cont.

• New Haven Legal Assistance Association
• New Haven learned that attorneys with expertise
  in a particular area of law can apply their
  knowledge to subsequent areas to create real
  change.
• During the 1960s and 1970s, New Haven had several
  attorneys engaged in disassembling the law,
  taking the law in one area to expand the law in
  other areas.
• Similar to LaFrances successful efforts in
  expanding the criminal fee waiver reasoning to
  civil divorce cases, legal services attorneys of
  that era did not accept the law as it stood, but
  rather seized opportunities to reform the law and
  create a more just system for indigent clients.

29
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society

• Divorce Litigation Successes
• Indigent plaintiffs no longer have to pay court
  fees in divorce cases.
• Courts must arrange service of process or
  publication of appropriate notice of divorce
  claims to defendants. If not, the plaintiff may
  mail notice to the defendants last address or
  post notice in the appropriate place.

30
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Divorce Litigation Limitations
• However, even though pro se divorce proves
  practically infeasible in practice, no relief for
  hiring counsel exists for indigent plaintiffs.
• Few clerks offices can provide appropriate forms
  to divorce plaintiffs and clerks offices cannot
  advise plaintiffs in filling out the forms or
  serving notice to defendants.
• Although many divorce plaintiffs may need a
  psychiatrist or social worker to testify, no
  economic relief exists to compensate experts or
  investigators.

31
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Civil Litigation Generally
• The Boddie decision lends strong support to the
  prospect of requiring state provision of
  transcripts in civil cases.

32
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Connecticut Civil Litigation
• With 28 USCS 1915 providing for federal court
  proceeding in forma pauperis and the Boddie
  decision, the Connecticut legislature followed
  suit, passing an in forma pauperis statute
  providing fee waivers for all state civil cases.
• Overall, indigent clients in Connecticut have
  benefited tremendously from fee waivers in civil
  cases.

33
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Civil Litigation Nationwide
• Boddie set the standard for fee waivers in
  non-criminal cases.
• For example, fee waivers may apply to cases where
  the state requires a person to go into court for
  relief.
• Waiving fees may also extend to suits against the
  state and suits between private individuals,
  although this area was limited by Justice
  Harlans decision in Boddie.

34
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Supreme Court Jurisprudence
• Boddie did not have an immediate expansive effect
  on subsequent Supreme Court case law.
• In the 1973 U.S. v. Kras decision, the Supreme
  Court held that the interest in obtaining a
  discharge in bankruptcy does not rise to the same
  constitutional level as the Boddie appellants
  interest in ending the fundamental marriage
  relationship.
• The Court reasoned that gaining or not gaining a
  discharge in bankruptcy would effect no change
  with respect to basic necessities.

35
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Supreme Court Jurisprudence, cont.
• In Ortwein v. Schwab, the Supreme Court also
  rejected the basic necessities approach, holding
  that the interest in maintaining a given level of
  welfare benefits was not fundamental even though
  it would likely affect basic necessities.
• The Court upheld a filing fee against a challenge
  by indigents seeking judicial review of
  administrative decisions to approve a cut in
  their welfare benefits.
• The Court also upheld an administrative hearing
  as a sufficient alternative to court access.

36
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Supreme Court Jurisprudence, cont.
• In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court
  developed a three factor test the Court should
  apply in analyzing fee waiver requests in
  disputes between private parties
• (1) consider the nature of the private interest
  involved
• (2) weigh the risk of erroneous decisions against
  the value of additional procedural safeguards to
  prevent those errors
• (3) consider the states interest in the request
  for a waiver.

37
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• State Courts Jurisprudence
• While Boddie has not expanded civil fee waivers
  beyond divorce cases in the Supreme Court, many
  lower state courts have held that the State
  cannot deny indigent plaintiffs seeking divorce
  access to the courts for inability to pay filing
  fees and other costs.
• Therefore, Boddie has greatly impacted access to
  the courts for indigent divorce plaintiffs
  nationwide.

38
Effects of BoddieLaw and Society, cont.

• Law Reform Generally
• Boddie serves as an example of law reform through
  litigation with wide success nationwide.
• Nevertheless, law reform through litigation has
  waned in the current legal era due to
• Lack of funding for legal services that has
  muzzled many of the attorneys practicing public
  interest law.
• Law reform via legislation that has dominated as
  legislators have become more favorable to
  legislative law reform that often provides a
  quicker alternative to litigation.

39
Conclusion

• In the realm of public interest law, Boddie
  proves a pivotal case in which an attorney
  expanded the criminal fee waiver policy to the
  civil realm via a carefully constructed and
  executed class action suit that secured greater
  justice for indigent plaintiffs nationwide.
• Demonstrates the value of creatively applying the
  law and policy from one legal area to other legal
  areas in an effort to create a more just judicial
  system.
• While law reform via litigation has subsided
  since the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, litigation
  continues to play an important role in promoting
  justice and equality in American society.