Full Faith And Credit: Federalism's Legal Bond

how does full faith and credit clause relate to federalism

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, is a key aspect of American federalism, shaping the relationships between states and the federal government. The clause mandates that each state accords full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. This provision ensures that states respect each other's laws, records, and court decisions, fostering uniformity and cooperation across the nation. However, the clause also grants Congress the authority to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings are proven and their effects. This dual structure of the clause, with its interplay between state and federal powers, lies at the heart of federalism in the US.

Characteristics Values
States' duty to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state Each state must give full faith and credit to the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other states
Congressional power to clarify the manner in which out-of-state acts, records, and judicial proceedings are to be proven and the effect they are to be given Congress can pass federal laws governing how these acts, records, and judgments may be proven in court
States' discretion to reject full faith and credit States can reject full faith and credit to out-of-state actions when they conflict with the laws or public policy interests of the forum state

shunspirit

The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the privileges and immunities clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, as outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, is a key aspect of federalism, impacting the relationships between states and the federal government. The clause mandates that each state accords full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. This clause is designed to prevent confusion and uncertainty that may arise when multiple states exercise power over the same issue.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause, also known as the Comity Clause, is another important aspect of federalism. This clause ensures that citizens of one state are afforded the same privileges and immunities in other states. The Supreme Court has determined that a strict parity rule qualifies this duty, ensuring equal treatment for all citizens regardless of their state of residence.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been interpreted differently over time, with the Supreme Court drawing a distinction between the credit owed to laws and that owed to judgments. While states generally respect each other's acts, records, and judgments, they retain the discretion to reject these when they conflict with their own laws or public policy interests. The practical impact of the clause has been limited, with states often disregarding it in favour of their own laws and interests.

Faith's Power: 'Have Faith in Me

You may want to see also

shunspirit

The Clause's historical background

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, or Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, has its historical roots in English common law and the discourse between English common law (secular) and ecclesiastical (religious) courts. The terms "faith" and "credit" are considered terms of art, with court decisions from the 16th century revealing that some common law courts gave "faith and credit" to the decisions of ecclesiastical courts, allowing these decisions to govern disputes under common law.

The phrase "full faith and credit" was first incorporated by the United States in the Articles of Confederation in 1777. The Continental Congress adopted a clause stating, "That full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the Records, Acts, and Judicial Proceedings of the Court and Magistrates of every other State." This provision was approved without debate and marked one of the few instances where the states were constitutionally obligated to cooperate and defer to the official actions of other states.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause was later readopted and included in the US Constitution, with two key modifications. Firstly, the framers extended the clause to include nonjudicial "public" acts, believing that the acts of state legislatures sometimes served similar purposes to acts of courts. Secondly, they gave Congress the power to prescribe the manner in which acts, records, and judicial proceedings could be proved and the effect they would be given. This second provision was proposed by James Madison, who felt it was necessary given the "nature of the Union."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, as part of the Constitution's federalist structure, plays a crucial role in adjusting the interrelationships between states and mitigating the risk of confusion and uncertainty when multiple states exercise power over the same issue or dispute.

shunspirit

The Clause's application to court judgments across different states

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, as outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, has a direct bearing on federalism by outlining the duty of individual states to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". This clause has been interpreted and applied to court judgments across different states in the following ways:

Supreme Court Interpretation

The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of the Constitution, interprets the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and its decisions set a precedent for lower courts. Notably, the Court's interpretation of the clause has evolved over time.

Mills v. Duryee (1813)

In one of its earliest interpretations of the clause, the Supreme Court ruled that judgments from out-of-state courts must be given the same conclusive effect in other states as they have in the issuing state. In other words, a state court cannot disregard a judgment from another state simply because it disagrees with it or its merits. This interpretation established that as long as the issuing state court had jurisdiction over the parties and the matter, its judgment would be definitive in all other states.

Exceptions

However, the Supreme Court has also recognized certain exceptions where a state may refuse to enforce judgments from another state. For example, the clause does not require a state to enforce criminal punishments imposed by another state's judgment. Additionally, the Court has differentiated between the credit owed to laws and the credit owed to judgments, as seen in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt (2003).

Conflict of Laws

The Full Faith and Credit Clause also raises questions about which law applies when there is a conflict between the laws of two states. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission (1935) that both states cannot simultaneously give full effect to each other's laws. In such cases, the Court established the current standard in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1981), allowing either court to apply its own state law as long as there is "a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that the choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair."

Same-Sex Marriage

The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to same-sex marriages has been a subject of debate. While Congress attempted to use the clause to slow the recognition of same-sex marriages through the Defense of Marriage Act, this was rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The Court held that there was "no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State."

Adoption and Family Law

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been applied to adoption decrees and family law matters. In V.L. v. E.L. (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that an Alabama court had to recognize an adoption decree granted to a same-sex couple by a Georgia state court, demonstrating the clause's requirement for states to give full effect to valid judgments from their sister state courts.

shunspirit

The Clause's application to laws of different states

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been the subject of conflicting interpretations, and there is little consensus on its scope and meaning. However, the Supreme Court has settled on a standard that treats out-of-state laws and out-of-state court judgments differently.

The Clause requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. This means that states must generally accept the judgments of other states' courts as long as the issuing court had proper jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court has recognised certain exceptions where a court may refuse to enforce judgments from another state, such as criminal punishments.

With respect to laws and state statutes, the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Full Faith and Credit Clause literally. Doing so would require states to give conclusive effect to the laws of other states, which would conflict with the principle that states may establish their own laws and govern themselves. Instead, the Court has determined that states may generally apply their own laws in their own courts, as long as they do not close their courts completely to claims based on other states' laws.

In situations where the law of either state could apply, the Supreme Court has established that either court may follow its own state law to resolve the matter, as long as that state has ""significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that the choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair." This standard was set in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1981) and reaffirmed in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2016).

The Full Faith and Credit Clause also raises questions about which law applies when two states' laws conflict. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission (1935) that it is impossible for both states to give effect to each other's law at the same time. Therefore, states have independently developed conflict-of-law or choice-of-law rules to resolve interstate conflicts of law, which vary from state to state.

shunspirit

The Clause's application to same-sex marriages

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, as outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, has had a complex and evolving interpretation over time, with its application to same-sex marriages being a particularly contentious issue.

The Clause's Text and Interpretation

The Full Faith and Credit Clause states:

> "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

The interpretation of this clause has been a subject of debate, with two primary theories emerging: compact theory and national theory. Compact theorists argue that the clause does not remove states' discretion in deciding which laws to apply within their borders. In contrast, national theorists promote a more literal interpretation, claiming that the clause mandates states to afford full legal effect to the official actions of other states.

Application to Same-Sex Marriages

The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to same-sex marriages has been a contentious issue, with legal scholars debating whether it requires states to recognize such marriages performed in other states. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted, defining marriage as between one man and one woman and allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The constitutionality of DOMA was questioned, with some scholars arguing it violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, in the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down DOMA as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, without addressing the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In 2015, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, rendering the issue of interstate recognition moot. However, it's worth noting that prior to this decision, same-sex marriages formed in one state were not always recognized in other states. The conventional wisdom among scholars was that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not require states to recognize these marriages, as marriage was seen as a subject of ordinary state lawmaking.

In summary, while the Full Faith and Credit Clause has had a complex interpretation and application, its role in same-sex marriage recognition was ultimately superseded by the Supreme Court's rulings in United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized and provided nationwide recognition for same-sex marriages, respectively.

Frequently asked questions

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state".

The Full Faith and Credit Clause attempts to address some of the challenges associated with each American state having its own legislature, judiciary, and executive branch. The U.S. Constitution is based on a federalist structure, meaning that two tiers of government typically govern the nation: federal and state. Each level possesses the power to enact laws and maintains a certain measure of independence from one another. The Full Faith and Credit Clause was designed to mitigate the uncertainty and confusion resulting from situations where more than one state may exert authority over the same dispute or matter.

In 1980, Congress established the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which requires the states to enforce child support determinations from other states.

Written by
Reviewed by
Share this post
Print
Did this article help you?

Leave a comment