Linda R. S. v. Richard D.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available. (January 2008)
Linda R. S. v. Richard D.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 1972
Decided March 5, 1973
Full case name: Linda R.S. v. Richard D. Et al.
Citations: 410 U.S. 614; 410 U.S. 614
Holding
Although appellant has an interest in her child's support, application of Art. 602 would not result in support but only in the father's incarceration, and a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority by: Marshall
Joined by: Burger, Powell, Rehnquist
Dissent by: White
Joined by: Brennan
Dissent by: Blackmun
Laws applied
Art. 602 of the Texas Penal Code

Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a ruling that a particular section of a Texas Penal Code did not apply to mothers with illegitimate children. The case was argued on December 6, 1972 and decided on March 5, 1973. The respondent was the father of the illegitimate child.

Contents

[edit] Facts

Appellant, the mother of an illegitimate child, brought a class action to enjoin the "discriminatory application" of Art. 602 of the Texas Penal Code providing that any "parent" who fails to support his "children" is subject to prosecution, but which by state judicial construction applies only to married parents. Appellant sought to enjoin the local district attorney from refraining to prosecute the father of her child

[edit] Opinion of the Court

The three-judge District Court dismissed appellant's action for want of standing. Although appellant has an interest in her child's support, application of Art. 602 would not result in support but only in the father's incarceration, and a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.

[edit] Justice White's Dissent

Justice White, with Justice Douglas joining, wrote that "children born out of wedlock ... have been excluded intentionally from the class of persons protected by a particular criminal law. They do not get the protection of the laws that other women and children get. Under Art. 602, they are rendered nonpersons; a father may ignore them with full knowledge that he will be subjected to no penal sanctions."

[edit] Justice Blackmun's Dissent

Justice Blackmun, with Justice Brennan joining saw "no reason to decide that question in the absence of a live, ongoing controversy because of Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973).

[edit] See also

[edit] External links