Although the complaint takes note of national conditions when it states that “former spouses pay approximately $9 billion in alimony each year,” the lawsuit is specific to Connecticut and rests on two main propositions.
Based on Supreme Court cases like Loving v. Virginia (which struck down anti-miscegenation laws) holding that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment, the complaint argues that “the right to end a marriage, and the right to remarry are fundamental liberty interests” as well.
The plaintiffs, all of whom are divorced men ordered to pay alimony, criticize Connecticut’s alimony laws on the grounds that they are “unconstitutionally vague, giving no notice to citizens contemplating marriage or divorce what fate may befall them in a divorce proceeding. The Legislature, by failing among other things even to identify the purpose or aim of alimony, has delegated basic policy decisions to the judiciary without any meaningful guidance.”
According to the complaint, the state’s alimony laws are so vague that judges may do pretty much whatever they want. Although the statutes list 17 separate factors for judges to consider in awarding alimony (“the length of the marriage, the causes for the…dissolution, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, earning capacity, vocational skills, education, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties…the division of the spouses’ marital property [and] in the case of a parent [with] custody of minor children…the desirability and feasibility of such parent’s securing employment”) the complaint states that “definitive case law holds that the court is free to assign to each factor whatever weight the court deems appropriate in any individual case” and may even “consider factors other than those identified in the statute.”
In light of the fact that Connecticut case law holds that trial judges need not explain what factors they considered or how they calculated alimony in their written decisions, the complaint argues that, “meaningful judicial review of trial court awards of alimony is impossible.”