Boddie v. Connecticut
401 U.S. 371 (1970)
Jessica Galant
Elizabeth Monterrosa
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.
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…”


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:



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…
Sheriff’s service fee=Minimum of $10-$15
Publication=$100 in Hartford and $150 in NYC
Total=a minimum of $60 for a divorce
http://www.uncontested.ca/
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 one’s 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.
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.
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.
The Boddie Parties:
Ms. 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
The Boddie Attorney:
Arthur 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
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.
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
indigent’s 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.
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.
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
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.
The U.S. District Court Decision
286 F.Supp. 968

Holding:



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:



“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.
1. Providing financial support for the court establishment
2. Discouraging frivolous lawsuits
Deferred to the state legislature to decide the political
issue.
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.
Connecticut’s 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.
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.
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
society’s 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.
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.
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.
Justice Douglas’s 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.
Justice Brennan’s Concurrence

A State’s 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.
Justice Black’s 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Parties 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Parties 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 nurse’s 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Parties and Attorney, Cont.

The Boddie Legacy, Mr. Reginald Boddie

Mr. Boddie’s desire to engage in public interest law
stems from his mother’s 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 mother’s 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Parties and Attorney, Cont.

The Boddie Legacy, Mr. Reginald Boddie, cont.



Following in his mother’s 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Parties 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Parties 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 LaFrance’s 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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 defendant’s last address or
post notice in the appropriate place.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Law and Society, cont.

Civil Litigation Generally

The Boddie decision lends strong support to
the prospect of requiring state provision of
transcripts in civil cases.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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 Harlan’s
decision in Boddie.

Effects of Boddie:
Law 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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 state’s interest in the request for a
waiver.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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.
Effects of Boddie:
Law 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.
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.