Marisa N. Pavan, et al. v. Nathaniel Smith
582 U. S. ____ (2017) (2017)
Rule of Law:
Under the principles established in Obergefell v. Hodges, a state may not deny married same-sex couples the same legal benefits and recognitions it provides to married opposite-sex couples, including the right to have both spouses listed on their child's birth certificate.
Facts:
- Two same-sex couples, the Jacobses and the Pavans, were legally married in other states.
- Both couples conceived children through anonymous sperm donation.
- In 2015, Leigh Jacobs and Terrah Pavan each gave birth to a child in Arkansas.
- When applying for birth certificates, both couples listed both spouses as parents on the required paperwork.
- The Arkansas Department of Health issued birth certificates that listed only the name of the birth mother, omitting the female spouse's name.
- Under existing Arkansas law, if a married woman gives birth, her husband's name must be entered on the certificate as the father, even in cases of conception via artificial insemination where he is not the biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- Two same-sex couples, the Jacobses and the Pavans, sued the director of the Arkansas Department of Health in an Arkansas state trial court.
- The trial court found in favor of the couples, holding that the state's birth-certificate law was unconstitutional under Obergefell v. Hodges.
- The director of the Arkansas Department of Health, the respondent, appealed this decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- A divided Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, upholding the constitutionality of the state statute.
- The couples, the petitioners, then sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arkansas law that requires a birth mother's husband to be listed on a child's birth certificate, regardless of biological paternity, but does not allow the birth mother's female spouse to be listed under the same circumstances, violate the constitutional principles established in Obergefell v. Hodges?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The Arkansas law violates the constitutional principles established in Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell guarantees same-sex couples the right to civil marriage 'on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples,' which includes the 'constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.' The Court in Obergefell explicitly identified 'birth and death certificates' as one of these benefits. Arkansas's law provides disparate treatment by automatically listing a non-biological husband on a birth certificate in cases of artificial insemination but refusing to do the same for a non-biological female spouse in identical circumstances. The state's argument that birth certificates are solely about biological relationships is contradicted by its own practice of listing non-biological fathers and adoptive parents. Having chosen to make birth certificates a form of legal recognition for married parents that extends beyond genetics, Arkansas cannot deny that same recognition to married same-sex couples.
Dissenting - Gorsuch
No. The summary reversal is inappropriate because the lower court's decision was not clearly in error. Obergefell addressed the right to marry but did not speak directly to the constitutionality of a state's biology-based birth registration regime. The state has rational reasons for such a system, such as tracking public health trends and biological lineage. The Arkansas Supreme Court did not defy Obergefell but rather earnestly engaged with it. The petitioners' challenge was overly broad, and the state had already conceded that the benefits of the artificial insemination statute must be applied equally to same-sex couples. Therefore, it is unclear what error the majority is correcting or what it expects to happen on remand, making the drastic step of summary reversal unwarranted.
Analysis:
This case is a significant post-Obergefell decision that reinforces and clarifies the scope of marriage equality. It establishes that the rights afforded by Obergefell are not merely symbolic but extend to all tangible, state-conferred benefits and legal recognitions tied to marriage. The summary reversal signals the Court's view that state laws creating differential treatment for same-sex spouses in areas like parental rights are clear constitutional violations, not novel legal questions requiring extensive deliberation. This precedent prevents states from using alternative rationales, such as biology, as a pretext to circumvent the core holding of marriage equality and deny same-sex couples the full legal status enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Marisa N. Pavan, et al. v. Nathaniel Smith (2017)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"