This is substantiated by the extensive press coverage of the 1967 and 1968 court proceedings. Third, only in recent years have courts and the general public come to recognize that children born of unmarried parents should not be penalized by being accorded a status for which they are not to blame. In the 1967 and 1968 proceedings, attorney Hamilton argued on Ms. Stone’s behalf that discriminating against illegitimate children violated the Federal Constitution. Unfortunately for appellant, Hamilton was before his time; the case that would remove much of the stigma associated with illegitimacy was then pending before the Supreme Court, but not decided until after appellant’s rights had been adjudicated. See Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 72, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968) (<HOLDING>). But even though Ms. Stone might arguably be
holding that the state has interest apart from affected individuals in antitrust suit against railroads for price fixing that discriminated against georgia shippers holding unconstitutional state statute that discriminated against illegitimates to discourage births out of wedlock holding manufacturing exception to pennsylvanias capital stock and franchise taxes unconstitutional because it facially discriminated against interstate commerce holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that three municipal flow control ordinances similar to the one here at issue discriminated against interstate commerce