Linda R. S. v. Richard D.
410 U.S. 614 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private citizen lacks standing to challenge the prosecutorial policies of the executive branch unless they can demonstrate a direct injury resulting from the government's action and show that the relief sought would likely redress that injury.
Facts:
- The appellant is the mother of an illegitimate child.
- Richard D., the alleged father of the child, refused to provide any financial support.
- A Texas criminal statute, Article 602, made it a misdemeanor for a parent to fail to provide support for their child.
- Texas courts had consistently interpreted Article 602 to apply only to the parents of legitimate children.
- The appellant asked her local district attorney to prosecute Richard D. under Article 602 for non-support.
- The district attorney refused to prosecute, stating that the law was inapplicable to the fathers of illegitimate children.
Procedural Posture:
- The mother of an illegitimate child (appellant) filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- The suit sought an injunction to prevent the 'discriminatory application' of a Texas criminal non-support statute.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the appellant lacked standing to sue.
- The appellant filed a direct appeal of the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mother of an illegitimate child have standing in federal court to seek an injunction compelling a state prosecutor to enforce a criminal child support statute against the child's father, when the state has a policy of prosecuting only the parents of legitimate children under that statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No. The mother of an illegitimate child lacks standing because she has failed to show a sufficiently direct nexus between her injury—the lack of child support—and the government's policy of not prosecuting fathers of illegitimate children. To have standing, a plaintiff must allege an actual or threatened injury that is a direct result of the defendant's putatively illegal action. Here, the appellant's injury is the father's failure to pay support, but the relief she seeks—the father's prosecution—is unlikely to redress that injury. The prospect that jailing the father would result in him making support payments is purely speculative. The Court holds that a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another person, as this is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The appellant has standing to challenge a state law that intentionally excludes her and her child from its protections. The majority's conclusion that the effect of criminal sanctions is 'speculative' is contrary to the entire premise of the criminal justice system, which assumes that the threat of punishment deters behavior. By refusing to enforce the support law for illegitimate children, Texas renders them 'nonpersons' and denies them the beneficial protections that the state provides to legitimate children. The appellant and her class have a direct interest in challenging this discriminatory exclusion and should be allowed to demand that the discrimination be ended.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
The Court should not decide the standing issue. An intervening Supreme Court decision, Gomez v. Perez, established that states must allow illegitimate children to obtain civil court orders for paternal support. Since the appellant's primary goal is to secure financial support, this new civil remedy may make her reliance on the criminal statute unnecessary. Because the underlying legal landscape has changed, the case may no longer present a live controversy. Therefore, the case should be remanded to the District Court to clarify the status of the litigation before the Supreme Court addresses the difficult constitutional question of standing.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in the law of standing, specifically concerning the doctrines of causation and redressability. It establishes a significant barrier for plaintiffs seeking to compel government prosecution of a third party, holding that the connection between the prosecution and the plaintiff's desired outcome is often too speculative to create a justiciable 'case or controversy.' The ruling reinforces the principle of prosecutorial discretion as a core executive function, limiting the judiciary's power to interfere. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for individuals to use the courts to force law enforcement to act against others, even when the failure to act seems discriminatory.
