| Michael H. v. Gerald D. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 11, 1988 Decided June 15, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Michael H. and Victoria D. v. Gerald D. |
| Citations | 491 U.S. 110 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgment for defendant aff'd, 191 Cal. App. 3d 995 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987); probable jurisdiction noted, 485 U.S. 903 (1988) |
| Holding | |
| California's conclusive-presumption law does not violate the Due Process Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist; O'Connor and Kennedy (in part) |
| Concurrence | O'Connor (in part), joined by Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun |
| Dissent | White, joined by Brennan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving substantive due process in the context of paternity law. Splitting five to four, the Court rejected a challenge to a California law that presumed that a married woman's child was a product of that marriage, holding that the due-process rights of a man who claimed to be a child's biological father had not been violated.