Fiallo, a Minor, by Rodriguez, et al. v. Bell, Attorney General, et al.
The Court rejected unmarried biological fathers' equal protection and due process challenges to immigration preference provisions that excluded their illegitimate children, and upheld the provisions, citing Congress' exceptionally broad power to admit or exclude noncitizens.· AI-written
430 U.S. 787 · No. 75-6297 · 1976 term · Burger Court
Decided Apr 26, 1977 · argued Dec 7, 1976
Civil rights · Illegitimates, rights
Majority opinion: Lewis Powell
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. Fiallo, a Minor, by Rodriguez, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the New York Eastern U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Fiallo, a Minor, by Rodriguez, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.
The appellants, three sets of unmarried biological fathers, contended that the law was discriminatory to the relationship between natural fathers and their illegitimate child and claimed equal protection and due process violations.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ claims and upheld the Sections, citing Congress' “exceptionally broad power” to admit or exclude non-citizens and acknowledging the intentional political choice of Congress to exclude a select group. As put by Justice Powell, who wrote for the majority, it was not, “the judicial role in cases of this sort to probe and test the justifications for the legislative decision.”
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1976 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Lewis PowellWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Thurgood MarshallWrote a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Byron WhiteJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Fiallo, a Minor, by Rodriguez, et al.Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Respondent
- Bell, Attorney General, et al.Attorney general of the United States, or his office
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 26, 1977DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Fiallo, a Minor, by Rodriguez, et al. lost.
- Dec 7, 1976ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the New York Eastern U.S. District Court: stay, petition, or motion granted, with a dissent.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
19 other argued cases since 1946 on illegitimates, rights, newest first.
- Lorelyn Penero Miller v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State523 U.S. 420Apr 22, 1998 · 523 U.S. 420Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Clark v. Jeter486 U.S. 456Jun 6, 1988 · 486 U.S. 456Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Reed v. Campbell, Individually and As Administratrix of the Estate of Ricker476 U.S. 852Jun 11, 1986 · 476 U.S. 852Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Pickett et al. v. Brown et al.462 U.S. 1Jun 6, 1983 · 462 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Mills v. Habluetzel456 U.S. 91Apr 5, 1982 · 456 U.S. 91Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Clark, Guardian445 U.S. 23Feb 26, 1980 · 445 U.S. 23Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Boles et al.443 U.S. 282Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 282Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Lalli v. Lalli, Administratrix, et al.439 U.S. 259Dec 11, 1978 · 439 U.S. 259Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Trimble et al. v. Gordon et al.430 U.S. 762Apr 26, 1977 · 430 U.S. 762Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Norton, a Minor, by Chiles v. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare427 U.S. 524Jun 29, 1976 · 427 U.S. 524Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Lucas et al.427 U.S. 495Jun 29, 1976 · 427 U.S. 495Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Jimenez et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare417 U.S. 628Jun 19, 1974 · 417 U.S. 628Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Linda R. S. v. Richard D. et al.410 U.S. 614Mar 5, 1973 · 410 U.S. 614Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Gomez v. Perez409 U.S. 535Jan 17, 1973 · 409 U.S. 535Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. et al.406 U.S. 164Apr 24, 1972 · 406 U.S. 164Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Willis v. Prudential Insurance Company of America405 U.S. 318Mar 20, 1972 · 405 U.S. 318Civil rights4–45–4 band
- Labine, Tutrix v. Vincent, Administrator401 U.S. 532Mar 29, 1971 · 401 U.S. 532Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. et al.391 U.S. 73May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 73Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Levy, Administratrix v. Louisiana Through the Charity Hospital of Louisiana at New Orleans Board of Administrators et al.391 U.S. 68May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 68Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.