Jacobsen v. King, 971 N.E.2d 620

In 2008, Illinois added a $5 fee to marriage licenses to fund the Married Families Domestic Violence Fund (the Fund).
The Fund is administered by the Illinois Attorney General and used to support legal services for domestic violence victims who are or were married.
Jillian Jacobsen filed suit in 2010 against the Du Page County clerk, the Treasurer, and the Attorney General challenging the fee as unconstitutional tax on marriage.
Plaintiff alleged due process, equal protection, and tax-uniformity violations, arguing the $5 is not reasonably related to the Act’s objective.
The circuit court dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding the fee is rationally related to a legitimate objective and does not violate uniformity or due process.
The opinion distinguishes Boynton v. Kusper and relies on rational-basis review for a nominal fee tied to a narrow charitable objective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the $5 marriage-license fee unconstitutional under the uniformity clause?	Jacobsen argues underinclusiveness and lack of reasonable relation to the Fund.	Defendants contend the fee bears a reasonable relation to the Fund’s objective.	No; fee bears a reasonable relation to the Fund, satisfying uniformity.
Does the $5 fee violate due process or equal protection as a substantial burden on marriage?	Jacobsen asserts the fee is a direct impediment to marrying.	Defendants argue the fee is nominal and not a significant burden.	No; rational-basis review applies and fee is reasonably related to a legitimate objective.
Should Boynton v. Kusper control the analysis of the fee's constitutionality?	Boynton shows remoteness between license fees and domestic violence outcomes.	Distinguish Boynton due to narrower, targeted fund, not a general revenue loss.	Distinguishable; the $5 fee is tied to a narrow purpose, not remote.
What standard of review applies to this facial challenge?	Facial invalidity should be recognized if no set of circumstances would validate.	Statutes presumed constitutional; must show no possible valid interpretation.	Rational-basis review applicable for a nominal fee; statute not facially invalid.

Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (Ill. 2008) (facial challenge and burden on constitutional rights; presumption of validity)
O’Brien v. White, 219 Ill. 2d 86 (Ill. 2006) (burden on constitutional classification; standard of review)
Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill.2d 142 (Ill. 2003) (uniformity requires reasonable relationship to objective)
Geja’s Café v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 153 Ill.2d 239 (Ill. 1992) (uniformity enforces minimum reasonableness between groups)
Boynton v. Kusper, 112 Ill.2d 356 (Ill. 1986) (remoteness of benefit from taxed class; critical to due process analysis)
In re R.C., 195 Ill.2d 291 (Ill. 2001) (due process requires appropriate level of scrutiny based on right affected)
In re D.W., 214 Ill.2d 289 (Ill. 2005) (fundamental rights require scrutiny level accordingly)
Searle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 117 Ill.2d 454 (Ill. 1987) (equal protection and uniformity interplay with tax schemes)