User:JKJ Moscow/Eunique v Powell

Eunique v Powell is the second case challenging passport denial for child support arrearage under 42 USC 652(k), enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act enacted in 1996.

FACTS OF THE CASE
Eudene Eunique applied for a passport in 1998 for business and to visit a sisters in Mexico. She was denied because she owed more than $5,000 in child support. Fifteen days later she brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on the theory that 42 U.S.C. § 652(k); 22 C.F.R. § 51.70(a)(8) unconstitutionally limited her 5th Amendment liberty right to travel. Eunique's arguments were narrowly drawn, essentially that there is an insufficient connection between her breach of the duty to pay for the support of her children, and the government’s interference with her right to international travel. She did not seek money damages.

DECISION
The district granted summary judgment against her, ruling that her right to travel was not a fundamental right. It held that enforcing child support orders was a legitimate and important state interest and that the law need not be narrowly tailored to achieve this purpose. She appealed. The 9th Circuit affirmed, holding that the right to travel can be regulated within the bounds of due process and that the Government need only advance a rational, or at most an important, reason for imposing the ban, citing Weinstein v Albright.