Civil and Human Rights

Adar v. Smith

Adar v. Smith raises important questions about the scope and enforceability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV.

Case Summary

On August 10, 2011, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Adar v. Smith. This case raises important questions about the scope and enforceability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV.

In 2006, Oren Adar and Mickey Smith legally adopted a little boy who was born in Louisiana. The valid, legal adoption took place in New York. In order to ensure that their son could be covered by Smith’s employer’s health insurance and obtain travel and identity documents, among other rights and benefits, the couple asked Louisiana to issue an amended birth certificate listing them as the boy’s parents. Louisiana refused, even though state law requires that when a child born in Louisiana has been adopted in another state, Louisiana must issue an amended birth certificate to the adoptive parents upon presentation of the adoption decree, identifying them on the birth certificate as the child’s parents. Louisiana claimed that the New York adoption decree violated its own policy of not allowing joint adoptions by “unmarried persons.” In a deeply divided en banc ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Louisiana’s actions as constitutional.

CAC’s brief argued that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution secures individual rights as well as the viability of the Union, and is properly enforceable by federal courts in a Section 1983 action. In safeguarding the equal dignity of states in the Union, the Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects the rights of individuals, requiring states to respect judgments issued by the courts of the other states that make up the Union. Louisiana failed to honor its constitutional obligation to give full faith and credit to out-of-state judgments that grant adoptions to unmarried couples when it refused to recognize such an adoption as equal in authority to adoptions adjudged in Louisiana.

On October 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 18, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.