Rappaport v. Katz
380 F. Supp. 808, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6925 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction over disputes that are of a purely local character and do not present a substantial federal constitutional question, especially in areas traditionally regulated by state and local governments.
Facts:
- The City Clerk of New York City established guidelines for civil marriage ceremonies.
- The guidelines required that the bride wear a dress or skirt and the groom wear a coat and tie.
- Plaintiff Rappaport wished to wear a green velvet pants suit to her wedding but was told she had to wear a skirt, and she complied.
- Plaintiff Dibbell was planning her marriage and wished to wear pants to the ceremony to express the equality of her partnership and avoid sex-role stereotyping.
- The City Clerk instituted the guidelines around 1965 in response to couples appearing for ceremonies in what he considered inappropriate attire, such as jeans and shorts, in order to maintain the solemnity of the occasion.
- The Clerk's office provided spare coats, ties, and rings for couples who needed them, and made exceptions for traditional ethnic or national dress.
Procedural Posture:
- Two couples (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the City Clerk of New York City (Defendant) in the United States District Court.
- The complaint alleged a violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought an injunction and damages.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do dress code regulations for civil marriage ceremonies promulgated by a city clerk present a substantial federal constitutional question warranting the exercise of federal court jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollack, District Judge
No. Regulations governing attire at a civil marriage ceremony are a matter of local concern that do not rise to the level of a substantial federal question warranting federal court intervention. The court reasoned that under principles of federalism, federal courts should avoid interfering in purely local affairs that states are more capable of resolving. The court explicitly declined to rule on the merits of the dress code itself, focusing instead on the threshold jurisdictional question. It distinguished this case from those involving personal appearance in schools or police departments, concluding that marriage decorum in a city hall does not justify provoking a federal-state conflict. Such disputes are best and most appropriately resolved by the state or the New York City Council, to whom the City Clerk is responsible.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key example of a federal court applying principles of federalism and judicial restraint to abstain from deciding a case. It establishes that not every claim of a constitutional violation will be deemed a 'substantial' federal question, particularly when the issue involves local administrative rules in an area traditionally governed by the state, such as marriage. The decision reinforces the limited jurisdiction of federal courts and their role in avoiding entanglement in local disputes that do not implicate core federal interests. This precedent discourages the use of federal civil rights statutes to challenge minor local regulations and directs such challenges to state and local political or judicial bodies.
