What is the traditional approach to the validity of a marriage of convenience?

Under the traditional approach some courts treat the marriage as valid when the parties were competent and satisfied all procedural requirements. Any collateral agreement disclaiming marital obligations is unenforceable as contrary to public policy but does not invalidate the marriage itself. This view promotes certainty in legal status and protects reliance interests of third parties and government agencies.

What is the alternative approach to the validity of a marriage of convenience?

Under the alternative approach courts invalidate the marriage unless the parties intended to assume the usual obligations and status of marriage. Evidence such as an explicit pre-ceremony agreement to live separately and a consistent course of conduct showing no cohabitation or financial integration demonstrates the absence of genuine marital intent. This view protects the institution of marriage from being used merely as a tool for collateral benefits.

Does a collateral agreement affect the validity of the marriage itself?

A collateral agreement that disclaims support or other marital obligations is invalid as contrary to public policy. Under the traditional approach the agreement is severed and the marriage remains valid. Under the alternative approach the agreement serves as evidence that the parties never intended to form a true marital relationship and supports invalidity of the marriage.

Legal Dictionary

marriage of convenience

/MAR-ij uhv kuhn-VEE-nyuhns/phrase

Also known as: marriages of convenience · convenience marriage · sham marriage

Written by attorneys — see sources below.

A marriage entered into primarily to achieve a limited collateral objective such as immigration status rather than to form a genuine marital relationship. Courts following the traditional approach treat the marriage as valid when the parties satisfied all procedural requirements even if they executed a collateral agreement disclaiming marital obligations. Courts following the alternative approach invalidate the marriage when the parties lacked intent to assume the usual obligations and status of marriage.

Political Alliance Lacking Genuine Commitment

A state political party adopted a rule allowing independent voters to participate in its primary. Party leaders argued that the rule would produce nominees wedded to the party only in a marriage of convenience. The Court examined whether the rule interfered with the party's ability to select candidates who would genuinely advance its interests rather than merely secure temporary electoral advantage.

Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut479 U.S. 208 (1986)

In 1955 Connecticut adopted its present primary election system under which major parties select candidates for federal and statewide offices through statewide conventions of party delegates and district conventions for state legislative seats, with party-endorsed candidates required to receive more than 20 percent of the convention vote and any candidate receiving 20 percent permitted to challenge in a primary. The costs of primary elections are paid from public funds, and candidates selected by the major parties receive automatic ballot access in the general election. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-431 has required since that time that voters in any party primary be registered members of that party. In 1976 a three-judge District Court upheld § 9-431 against a challenge by an independent voter seeking to participate in the Republican primary; at that time the Republican Party of Connecticut opposed the effort. By 1983 the Party had changed its position, citing the demographic importance of independent voters in the state. In September 1983 the Party's Central Committee recommended a state convention to consider altering party rules, and in January 1984 the convention adopted Rule 3 permitting any elector enrolled as a Republican or any elector not enrolled in any party to vote in Republican primaries for United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, Attorney General, Comptroller, and Treasurer. During the 1984 legislative session Republican leaders proposed amending § 9-431 to allow independents to vote in primaries when permitted by party rules, but the measure was defeated along party lines in the Democratic-controlled legislature. The Party and its federal officeholders and state chairman then sued state officials, including Secretary of the State Julia Tashjian, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. After discovery the parties submitted extensive stipulations of fact, and the District Court granted summary judgment for the Party in December 1984. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in 1985. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1986. At the time of the rule's adoption Connecticut had 659,268 registered Democrats, 425,695 registered Republicans, and 532,723 registered unaffiliated voters.

marriage of convenience

Common Law

Common Examples

Immigration-Based Union With Separate Lives

Political Alliance Lacking Genuine Commitment

Students Frequently Ask...

Key Cases Using This Term

Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn.

Lutwak v. United States

Test Yourself

Practice Questions1

Practice Essays4