Stanley v. Illinois Nature of the Case: The plaintiff is Peter Stanley. He claimed that his rights to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment were violated. He believes the Illinois law making children of unmarried fathers ward of the state in the event of their mother's death violated his rights. Facts: Joan and Peter Stanley lived together on and off for 18 years, during which time they had 3 children. When Joan Stanley died, Stanley's children were declared wards of the state and placed with court-appointed guardians after a dependency hearing by the State of Illinois. Stanley claimed that he had never demonstrated that he was an unfit parent. He believed that since married fathers and unmarried mothers could not be deprived of their children without proving it, neither should he. The Illinois Supreme Court accepted that Peter Stanley's unfitness had not been proven, but rejected that he had been deprived of his rights under the 14th Amendment. Issue: Did the State of Illinois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his eligibility to support his children? Ruling: Yes, a hearing is afforded equal protection under the law for both married fathers and unmarried mothers and unmarried fathers. Rule: 1. Judge White, speaking for the majority, finds that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, which held that the State could not deprive a person of a driver's license related to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The State's interest in the care of Stanley's children is de minimis if Stanley proves a suitable father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley's unfitness only because it is cheaper to presume than to prove. 2. They have concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their eligibility before their children are removed from custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is unavoidably contrary to clause 3 of equal protection. The rule of law that justifies the conduct of the case is: "For us it is fundamental that the custody, care and education of the child reside first and foremost with the parents, whose primary function and freedom includes preparation for obligations which the State can neither provide nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has been protected in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment.