Prior to 1968 in Louisiana, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not applied to all citizens of that state. Under Louisiana law, children could recover two kinds of damages from the wrongful death of their mother. The children could receive damages for the loss of their mother as well as damages based on any cause of action the mother had at the time of her death for pain and suffering.
Thelma Levy bought suit on behalf of five children, against an insurance company and a doctor who treated their unmarried mother. The mother, who gave birth to these children out of wedlock, supported her children by working as a housekeeper. The trial court dismissed the case and a Louisiana appellate court ruled, as did the lower court, that “children” entitled to recover damages under the statute meant only “legitimate children.” The State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the plaintiff took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court was asked to review the statute on the grounds that in precluding recovery of damages by illegitimate children, the statute denied them equal protection under the law.
Justice Douglas delivered the findings of the court. He stated that lower courts were starting from the premise that illegitimate children were “nonpersons.” The court felt that the state was wrong, and that these children were clearly “persons,” and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They pointed out that regardless of his status at birth, one is still a citizen, responsible for paying taxes, obeying laws, and subject to the Selective Service Act. It was grossly unfair to allow those who had deprived these children of their mother, to walk away without any liability, because the children were born out of wedlock. The lower court decision was reversed, as Justice Douglas said:
Legitimacy or Illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong inflicted on the mother. These children, though illegitimate, were dependent on her; she cared for them and nurtured them; they were indeed hers in the biological and in the spiritual sense in her death they suffered wrong in the sense that any dependent would. We conclude that it is invidious to discriminate against them when no action, conduct, or demeanor of theirs is possibly relevant to the harm that was done the mother. (7)
