Explaining 'Full Faith And Credit' In Article 4

The Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution addresses the duty of individual states to respect the laws, records, and official proceedings of other states. It requires each state to give a certain measure of respect to every other state's laws and institutions, promoting horizontal federalism between states. The clause also allows Congress to determine how these materials can be proven in court and their subsequent effects. The interpretation and application of this clause have evolved over time, with the Supreme Court playing a key role in shaping its understanding and implementation.

Each state must respect the laws and institutions of every other state

The US Constitution is based on a federalist structure, which means that the country is governed by two tiers of government: federal and state. Each state has its own government, judiciary, and legislature, and each level has the power to enact laws and maintain a certain level of independence from one another.

However, this dual sovereignty can lead to situations where more than one state may exert authority over the same dispute or matter, resulting in uncertainty and confusion. The Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution was designed to mitigate this uncertainty. It addresses the duty that states have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state".

The Clause requires each state to give "Full Faith and Credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. This means that each state must pay attention to the other states' statutes, public records, and court decisions.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Clause as treating out-of-state court judgments differently from out-of-state laws. While states generally have more freedom to apply their own laws in their own courts, they must give out-of-state judgments conclusive effect, as long as the issuing court had the necessary authority over the case and the parties.

The Clause also allows Congress to pass federal laws governing how these acts, records, and judgments may be proven in court and what effect they will have. For example, Congress has enacted legislation requiring federal and territorial courts to adhere to the same principles as state courts under the Clause.

In summary, the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the US Constitution requires each state to respect the laws and institutions of every other state by recognising and enforcing the rights and judgments based on another state's laws and judicial proceedings. This helps to maintain order and consistency across the nation, even with each state's independent governing capabilities.

Congress decides how laws and institutions are proven in court

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the relationships between states, also known as "horizontal federalism". It requires each state to recognise the laws and institutions of other states, and outlines the duty of states to respect the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".

The second sentence of the clause gives Congress the power to decide how these materials can be proven in court and what effect they will have. This means that Congress can pass federal laws that govern how these acts, records, and judgments may be proven in court. For example, Congress has enacted legislation requiring federal and territorial courts to adhere to the same principles as state courts under the clause.

The current implementing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, declares that these materials should receive "the same full faith and credit" in each state that they have in the state "from which they are taken". This means that a state court judgment will conclusively determine the parties' rights in every other state, even if it might be wrong on the law, and even if the judgment violates public policy in the state where it is enforced.

Congress has rarely used its power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but it has passed statutes clarifying which courts may issue orders on child custody and child support when a family is spread across multiple states.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause addresses the relationships between states

The United States Constitution is based on a federalist structure, meaning the nation is typically governed by two tiers of government: federal and state. Each level has the power to enact laws and maintains a certain measure of independence from one another.

However, this dual sovereignty can lead to situations where more than one state may exert authority over the same dispute or matter, resulting in uncertainty and confusion. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, found in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, was designed to mitigate these issues.

The Clause addresses the relationships between states, or "horizontal federalism," by requiring each state to give a certain measure of respect to every other state's laws and institutions. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This means that each state must pay attention to the other states' statutes, public records, and court decisions.

The second part of the Clause gives Congress the power to decide how those materials can be proven in court and what effect they will have. The current implementing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, declares that these materials should receive "the same full faith and credit" in each state that they have in the state "from which they are taken."

The interpretation and application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause have evolved over time, with the Supreme Court playing a significant role in shaping its meaning and scope. For example, in the early 19th century, the Court interpreted the Clause as requiring states to recognize other states' court judgments as conclusive. However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Court began to recognize a "public policy exception," allowing states to enforce their own public policies and laws in certain situations.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been applied to various areas of law, including family law, protection orders, and child support. While it has helped resolve some interstate conflicts, it has also faced limitations and controversies, particularly in the recognition of same-sex marriages and other family law matters.

Overall, the Full Faith and Credit Clause plays a crucial role in addressing the relationships between states and ensuring a level of uniformity and cooperation within the federalist structure of the United States.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is rooted in private international law

The historical principles behind the Full Faith and Credit Clause are rooted in private international law. This body of law addresses whether one nation should recognize and enforce rights based on another country's laws and judgments. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, like private international law, aims to address conflicts of laws and interstate comity. Comity refers to the courtesy one jurisdiction shows another by honouring its laws or judgments.

The Framers of the US Constitution did not want to leave these matters to the states based on comity alone. They wanted to hold the states to a constitutional obligation, so they incorporated the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause requires every state, as part of a single nation, to give a certain measure of respect to every other state's laws and institutions.

The first part of the clause, largely borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, requires each state to pay attention to the other states' statutes, public records, and court decisions. The second sentence lets Congress decide how those materials can be proved in court and what effect they will have.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been interpreted differently over the years. Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, the Supreme Court decided Mills v. Duryee, addressing whether the clause required a D.C. court to recognize a New York state court judgment as conclusive or merely as evidence. The Court ruled that judgments from out-of-state courts must carry the same conclusive effect in other states as they do in the issuing state.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has real teeth once a court has made a decision. As long as a state court has authority over the case and the parties, its judgments will conclusively determine the parties' rights in every other state—even if it might be wrong on the law, and even if the judgment violates public policy in the state where it's enforced.

However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause has a relatively light impact on state statutory law. When two states' laws are in conflict, it's impossible for both of them to give effect to each other's law at the same time. In such cases, either court can apply its own state's law to the dispute, as long as that state has "a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that the choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to court judgments across different states

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, is designed to address the challenges that arise from each American state having its own legislature, judiciary, and executive branch. The US Constitution is based on a federalist structure, meaning that the nation is typically governed by two tiers of government: federal and state. Each level has the power to enact laws and maintain a degree of independence from one another.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause specifically addresses the relationships between states, also known as "horizontal federalism." It requires each state to give a certain measure of respect to the laws, institutions, and judicial proceedings of every other state. This includes paying attention to the other states' statutes, public records, and court decisions.

The Clause has a significant impact on court judgments across different states. Once a court has made a decision, its judgments will conclusively determine the parties' rights in every other state, as long as the court has authority over the case and the parties involved. This is true even if the judgment goes against the public policy of the state where it is being enforced. For example, a state's judgment on a gambling debt can be collected in another state where gambling is a crime.

However, there are certain exceptions where a court may refuse to enforce judgments from another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require one state to enforce a criminal punishment from another state's judgment. Additionally, federal courts have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the legal pronouncements of another state if they conflict with its own public policy.

The interpretation and application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause have evolved over time, and its impact on state laws and court judgments continue to be the subject of legal debate and discussion.

Frequently asked questions