Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision rejected the consideration of racial bias in child custody proceedings as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.[1] Today, the case is taught in many constitutional law courses in the United States as an example of the application of the doctrine of strict scrutiny.[citation needed][2]
| Palmore v. Sidoti | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 1984 Decided April 24, 1984 | |
| Full case name | Linda Sidoti Palmore v. Anthony J. Sidoti |
| Citations | 466 U.S. 429 (more) 104 S. Ct. 1879 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 426 So.2d 34 |
| Subsequent | 472 So.2d 843 |
| Holding | |
| Social bias against interracial families is not a permissible consideration in determining child custody. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Background
editLinda Palmore and Anthony Sidoti (both white) divorced in 1980 in Florida. Palmore was awarded custody of their daughter, Melanie. Some months later, Palmore began living with and eventually married Clarence Palmore Jr., a black man.[3][4] In September 1981, Sidoti filed to modify the original custody award, citing "changed conditions." In particular, Sidoti argued that Palmore had failed to properly care for Melanie and that Palmore's cohabitation with Palmore constituted a "changed condition."[4][5]
At the custody hearing, the Court found that there had been no change with respect to "either party's devotion to the child, adequacy of housing facilities, or respectability of the new spouse of either parent."[3] Even so, the Court awarded custody to Sidoti because Melanie would suffer peer pressure and stigmatization if allowed to grow up in an interracial household.[3]
Decision
editChief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote for a unanimous Court. The Court acknowledged the existence of racial prejudice in American society, but reasoned that "[t]he Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect."[3]
Aftermath and legacy
editDespite the favorable ruling, Palmore never regained custody of her daughter.[6]
The Palmore decision has been cited as prohibiting judges from considering parents' sexual orientation in custody proceedings.[7][8]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ "Palmore v. Sidoti". Oyez. Retrieved 2023-09-17.
- ^ Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (8th ed.). United States of America: Aspen Publishing. 2022. pp. 1158–1159. ISBN 978-1-5438-3855-8.
- ^ a b c d "Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-09-17.
- ^ a b "Race as a Factor in Custody and Adoption Disputes: Palmore v. Sidoti". heinonline.org. Retrieved 2023-09-17.
- ^ Harrell, Collette (September 1, 1997). "Palmore v. Sidoti". Brigham Young University Prelaw Review. 11 (6): 2–3.
- ^ McClain, Linda (May 2020). "Palmore v. Sidoti: The Troubling Effects of "Private Biases"". Boston University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory. 20 (18): 2 – via SSRN.
- ^ "In re Marriage of Black (Majority and Concurrence)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-09-17.
- ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (2017-04-14). "Washington State Judges Cannot Discriminate Against Gay or Bi Parents in Custody Decisions". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2023-09-17.