In re James K. Walker (276 B.R. 568 [Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2002]) is a case challenging the denial of passport issuance due to child support arrears under 42 USC 652(k), enacted in 1996 as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.
Debtor James K. Walker sought judicial intervention in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas to remove a "hold" placed on his passport by the Secretary of State, after the Attorney General of Texas notified the State Department of Walker's failure to pay child support obligations and requested the hold. Walker argued that in order to repay the child support arrears, he needed to work, and that to work he needed back surgery. In order to have the surgery and to be able to live during the recuperation period, he claimed he needed to be with his wife—who was in the military, stationed in Germany—and thus needed a valid passport.
Bankruptcy Judge Leif M. Clark held that since the law was constitutional, the principle of justiciability prevented the court from interfering with the Secretary of State's exercise of executive authority in placing a hold on the debtor's passport—or with the Secretary of Health and Human Services's exercise of authority in certifying the debtor's child-support obligations to the Secretary of State in order to initiate that hold.
The Bankruptcy Court first examined the limitations on power of coordinate branches of government, and proceeded to an examination of the constitutional issue of due process and the right to travel. According the Court, "If the law is otherwise constitutional, principles of justiability prevent this court from interfering with the Secretary of State's exercise of executive authority."
The court ruled that "the manner in which the Secretary elects to deny a passport to a given applicant must not be arbitrary or capricious, lest it violate the proscriptions of the Equal Protection Clause", citing Shactman v Dulles, 255 F2d 938 (D.C. Circuit 1955). It cited Eunique v Powell regarding the right to travel, affirming that the right to international travel is not a fundamental right. It then looked at "whether Congress had the power to make such a law [42 USC 652(k)] in the first instance", citing Haig v. Agee. It ruled that 42 USC 652(k) was a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Spending Clause, citing Kansas v US (214 F.3d 1196, 1198 [10th Circuit]).