Full Faith and Credit
Article IV, § 1 requires each state to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 extends this obligation to federal courts.
Elements / Test
For judgments (strongest obligation):
- The rendering court had jurisdiction (personal and subject matter)
- The judgment is valid and final
- The recognizing court must give the judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the rendering state
- The recognizing court may NOT re-examine the merits
Exceptions to judgment recognition:
- Rendering court lacked jurisdiction (either personal or subject matter)
- Judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud
- Penal judgments (some states)
For statutes (“public acts”) — weaker obligation:
- States have more flexibility to decline applying another state’s law based on public policy
- But Hughes v. Fetter: A state may not close its courts to a cause of action created by another state’s law without adequate justification
Exceptions and Edge Cases
- Injunctions: Baker v. General Motors — FFC does not require giving effect to another state’s injunction to the extent it purports to dictate behavior in a third state
- Child custody decrees: Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and UCCJEA require enforcement of custody orders
- Same-sex marriages: Obergefell made the DOMA / FFC conflict moot by requiring recognition
- Modifiable decrees (alimony, child support): Generally entitled to FFC for past-due amounts only; future modifications governed by rendering state
Policy Rationale
Prevents litigation tourism — forces finality of judgments across state lines. Promotes unity of the national legal system and respect for state court judgments. Weaker for statutes to preserve state autonomy in choice of law.
Key Cases
| Case | Rule |
|---|---|
| Hughes v. Fetter (1951) | FFC requires state to entertain sister-state wrongful death claim; Wisconsin statute violated |
| Carroll v. Lanza (1955) | FFC does not require Arkansas to apply Missouri’s exclusive-remedy workers’ comp bar |
| Baker v. General Motors Corp. (1998) | FFC does not require giving effect to Michigan injunction purporting to bind non-parties in Missouri |
| Durfee v. Duke (1963) | FFC requires giving preclusive effect to another court’s jurisdictional ruling |