The Supreme Court case Michael H. et al. v. Gerald D., 1988, revolved around the issue of paternity and parental rights in a complex family situation. Victoria D., married to Gerald D., had an affair with Michael H., which resulted in the birth of a child that both men claimed as their own. Under California law, there was a presumption that children born into a marriage were legitimate offspring of the husband; thus, legally recognizing Gerald as the father despite biological tests proving otherwise. Michael sued for his paternal rights but lost at every level due to this presumption under state law - including at The Supreme Court where it upheld California's statute by 5-4 vote stating it did not violate any constitutional protections or principles of justice. The court ruled that while biology is important, so too are societal norms and legal structures designed to maintain stable families and protect innocent parties (like Victoria’s daughter). It also noted that historically society has protected certain relationships like marriages from outside interference even when those relationships might be flawed or based on falsehoods.

In the dissenting opinion for Michael H. et al. v. Gerald D., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the plurality's historical analysis was flawed and too narrow in scope to determine constitutional rights accurately or fairly. They contended that a biological father has an interest in developing a relationship with his child even if it disrupts an existing family unit, emphasizing that such interests should be protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as they are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The dissent also criticized the majority for failing to consider modern societal values which recognize parental rights based on biology rather than marital status alone.