A state law prohibits remarriage by a person who has divorced, unless current on all child support payments. Which outcome is most consistent with Supreme Court precedent?

• A. The law violates Pierce v. Society of Sisters by infringing on parental rights.
• B. The law is constitutional because it serves the public interest.
• C. The law is neutral and passes rational basis.
• D. The law infringes a fundamental right and triggers strict scrutiny.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that family decisions and parental authority carry strong constitutional protection. Pierce v. Society of Sisters stands for the principle that the state cannot unduly intrude on parents’ liberty to direct the upbringing and welfare of their children. A rule that bars remarriage unless a divorced person is current on all child-support payments uses the state to control a core aspect of family life and domestic arrangement. That kind of interference with how a family organizes itself and who is part of its household goes beyond ordinary regulation of financial obligations and intrudes on parental prerogatives over the upbringing and welfare of children. Because of that protective stance toward parental autonomy reflected in Pierce, conditioning remarriage on satisfying child-support obligations is viewed as an unconstitutional intrusion on parental rights.