409 U.S. 535 (1973)
In 1969, the appellant, a mother acting on behalf of her minor daughter, filed a petition in Texas District Court seeking support from the appellee on behalf of her minor child.1 The petition sought to enforce a support obligation against the appellee, the alleged natural father of the child.2
After conducting a hearing, the state trial judge made key findings. The judge determined that the appellee is the biological father of the child and that the child needs the support and maintenance of her father.3
However, the judge concluded that because the child was illegitimate there is no legal obligation to support the child and the Plaintiff take nothing.4 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this ruling over the objection that this illegitimate child was being denied equal protection of law.5 The Texas Supreme Court refused application for a writ of error, finding no reversible error.6
The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to consider the equal protection claim.7
Whether the laws of Texas may constitutionally grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers and at the same time deny that right to illegitimate children?8
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a State may not invidiously discriminate against illegitimate children by denying them substantial benefits accorded children generally.9 Once a State posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers, there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married its mother.10
No. The Texas laws grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers and at the same time deny that right to illegitimate children.11 This is shown by the facts. The state trial judge found that appellee is the biological father of the child, and that the child needs the support and maintenance of her father, but concluded that because the child was illegitimate there is no legal obligation to support the child and the Plaintiff take nothing.12 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this ruling over the objection that this illegitimate child was being denied equal protection of law. The Texas Supreme Court refused application for a writ of error, finding no reversible error. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. There is no constitutionally sufficient justification for this denial of an essential right based solely on the marital status of the parents.13
The problems with respect to proof of paternity are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination.14
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because upon the submission of briefs and oral argument, it became clear that neither statute had been the actual subject of litigation in the courts of Texas.17 He would treat the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari.18 Additionally, the parties were not prepared to submit this case as one challenging the common-law treatment of illegitimates in Texas, and failed to provide this Court with a sufficient understanding of Texas law with respect to such matters as custodial versus noncustodial support obligations, legitimation, common-law marriage, and the effect of a Texas statute which became law after this litigation had begun.19
With the issues so vaguely drawn and the alleged discriminations so imprecise, Justice Stewart would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.20