It held that the right of recovery may not be denied merely because a person is the illegitimate child of the deceased because such a law would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals also defended its affirmation, claiming that the law was sound because it furthered the government interest of maintaining morals and general welfare by discouraging bearing children out of wedlock.

One precedent cited was the decision the Court made in Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark case in American civil rights.

In the case at hand, the Court attacked the inappropriateness of the Louisiana statute and considered that the children's legitimacy had no bearing on their relationship to their mother.

He concluded the Louisiana statute served a rational and constitutionally acceptable purpose: "If it be conceded, as I assume it is, that the State has power to provide that people who choose to live together should go through the formalities of marriage and, in default, that people who bear children should acknowledge them, it is logical to enforce these requirements by declaring that the general class of rights that are dependent upon family relationships shall be accorded only when the formalities as well as the biology of those relationships are present."