Malecek v. WilliamsÂ
255 N.C. App. 300
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Married couple Mark and Amber Malecek; Amber worked with Dr. Derek Williams, who began an extra‑marital sexual relationship with her in 2015.
- Mark Malecek sued Williams for alienation of affection and criminal conversation.
- Williams moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the two common‑law torts are facially unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds; Malecek appealed.
- Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and considered whether the torts are facially invalid in light of Lawrence v. Texas and First Amendment doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alienation of affection and criminal conversation are facially invalid under substantive due process (Fourteenth Amendment) | Malecek: torts are valid; they protect marital interests and remedy injury | Williams: torts burden constitutionally protected private intimate conduct (per Lawrence) and thus are unconstitutional | Held: Not facially invalid; Lawrence protects private intimacy but does not categorically forbid laws that remedy injury to marriage or protect the institution; rational‑basis scrutiny (as applied) upholds torts in many applications |
| Whether torts violate freedom of speech/expression (First Amendment) | Malecek: torts target harms, not the content of intimate expression | Williams: liability for intimate relations burdens protected expressive conduct | Held: Not facially invalid; burdens are incidental and content‑neutral in most applications and survive O’Brien intermediate test |
| Whether torts violate freedom of association (First Amendment) | Malecek: torts do not bar general association and require conduct causing marital injury | Williams: imposing liability for association with a married person chills associational rights | Held: Not facially invalid; many forms of association remain lawful and the argument reduces to the expressive/sexual‑conduct analysis already addressed |
| Whether state constitutional protections change the analysis | Malecek: state constitution coextensive with federal protections | Williams: argues broader protection under state constitution | Held: Court declines to revisit state constitutional law because North Carolina Supreme Court treats state rights as coextensive with federal equivalents |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (recognizes liberty interest in private consensual sexual intimacy and rejects laws rooted in moral disapproval)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for laws that incidentally burden expressive conduct)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (discusses marriage’s centrality and the promise of fidelity)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (suits that penalize constitutionally protected conduct can constitute state action)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational‑basis review can invalidate laws rooted in animus)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational‑basis scrutiny and heightened review considerations)
- Windsor, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (framework for balancing state interests against protected liberties)