Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs brought suit claiming that a Nebraska law requiring that a child have some legally established parental connection to the surname on the birth certificate was unconstitutional.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The right to choose the surname on a child’s birth certificate is not fundamental. The Nebraska statute forbidding surnames to which there is no legally established paternal interest bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
In order to have standing: (1) Plaintiff must allege an actual or threatened injury as a result of the conduct of the defendant, (2) the injury alleged by plaintiff must be fairly traceable to the action of the defendant that is challenged in the lawsuit, and (3) the injury alleged by plaintiff must be likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of the court.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Does a parent have a fundamental right to give a child a surname at birth with which the child has not legally established parental connection?
Held. The trial court erred its determination that the Statute was unconstitutional because Plaintiffs failed to present a fundamental right to place any surname on a child’s birth certificate.
Previous case law has established the existence of a fundamental right to make child rearing decisions, but the right is not absolute. The right to choose a child’s surname bears little resemblance to the parental rights of training and education previously found to be fundamental.
The custom in this country has been for a child to bear the surname of the father at birth, with children born out of wedlock receiving the surname of the mother. The Nebraska law rationally furthers at least three legitimate state interests: promoting the welfare of children, insuring the names of its citizens are not appropriated for improper purposes, and inexpensive and efficient record keeping.
Dissent. The fundamental right of privacy includes the right of parents to name their own children. The State has demonstrated no interest sufficiently compelling to override that right.
Discussion. The majority uses the rational-basis test to determine if the state’s interest is valid because it finds that no fundamental right exists in this subject. The dissent agrees that under the rational-basis test the Statute should be upheld, but believes that there is a fundamental right and that the Statute fails to pass the compelling interest test.