Citizens-only marriage licensesLicencias de matrimonio solo para ciudadanos

Facts

The Texas legislature enacts the Marriage Integrity Act, which provides that county clerks may issue a marriage license only if both applicants are United States citizens. The legislative findings cite “the prevention of fraudulent marriages for immigration purposes” and “accuracy of vital records.” Lucía, a lawful permanent resident from Monterrey, and Marcus, a U.S. citizen, apply for a license in Dallas County and are refused. They sue under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Call of the question

Is the Act constitutional? Analyze equal protection and due process, address the state’s justifications, and note any federalism problem.

Model answer

Issue: whether a state may deny a marriage license because one applicant is not a citizen.

Rule: the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state to deny equal protection or to deprive persons of liberty without due process. Classifications based on alienage drawn by a state are subject to strict scrutiny, and laws that directly and substantially burden the fundamental right to marry are also reviewed strictly: the state must show a compelling interest and a law narrowly tailored to it. Loving v. Virginia struck down a marriage ban based on race on both grounds, holding that the freedom to marry is one of the vital personal rights and that a status-based classification serving no legitimate purpose cannot stand.

Application: the Act classifies by alienage and burdens the right to marry, so strict scrutiny applies on either theory. The state’s interests do not survive it. Preventing immigration fraud is a federal concern already policed by federal law, which examines the bona fides of marriages for immigration benefits; a flat state ban is wildly overbroad, because it excludes every non-citizen, including lawful permanent residents with no immigration motive at all, and Lucía already has status. Accuracy of vital records is served by asking for identification, not by refusing a license. As in Loving, the classification tracks a status rather than any conduct, and the fit between means and ends is nonexistent. The due process holding of Loving applies with equal force: the right to marry belongs to persons, not only to citizens.

There is a second problem. Immigration is a federal domain under the Supremacy Clause and Congress’s plenary power; a state law that conditions a civil institution on citizenship to fight “immigration fraud” intrudes on that domain and invites preemption arguments on top of the constitutional ones.

Conclusion: the Act is unconstitutional. It fails strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, violates the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause, and likely conflicts with federal authority over immigration.

Common mistakes

• Applying rational basis review because the classification “only” concerns non-citizens; state alienage classifications get strict scrutiny.
• Forgetting the due process route; Loving has two holdings.
• Accepting the fraud rationale without testing the fit of the means to the end.