Adar v. Smith
622 F.3d 426
5th Cir.2011Background
- Adar and Smith, unmarried, legally adopted Louisiana-born Infant J in New York (2006).
- They sought a Louisiana birth certificate listing both as adoptive parents, citing NY adoption decree and LA §40:76 and related statutes.
- Registrar refused to list both adoptive parents, stating “adoptive parents” means married couples in Louisiana.
- Registrar offered to list one adoptive parent instead; Appellees sued under §1983 for FT&CT and equal protection.
- District court ruled for Appellees on FT&CT claim; en banc reversed, remanding for dismissal; Judge dissent addresses broader FF&C/EP issues.
- The court discusses standing, federal jurisdiction under §1983 for FT&CT, and whether Louisiana must recognize the NY decree while applying its own birth-certificate laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellees have standing to sue for FT&CT claim | Adar and Smith have injury from denial of revised certificate | Standing or jurisdiction questionable; focus on merits | Appellees have standing; court may address the FT&CT claim |
| Whether FF&C clause creates a federal right actionable under §1983 | FF&C creates private rights enforceable via §1983 | FF&C is a rule of decision for courts, not a standalone federal right | FF&C does not generally create a §1983 private right; but see remainder of en banc discussion (revoked/ remanded) |
| Whether Louisiana must recognize the NY adoption decree to permit a revised birth certificate | LA must recognize out-of-state decrees and issue full certificate | LA may apply its own laws to enforce its vital records | Issue remanded; majority reversal on FT&C grounds; nuanced recognition vs enforcement |
| Whether equal protection applies to denial of birth certificate to unmarried adoptive parents | Classification harms unmarried adoptive parents; not rationally related to legitimate interests | LA has legitimate interest in stable, married-adoptive environments | Remanded for district court to address EP claim; not resolved on the merits in en banc decision |
| Whether the action should be remanded to district court to litigate EP claim | District court already addressing FT&C; EP should be heard there | EP claim improperly considered at en banc stage | Remand to district court for EP claim adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (1988) (FF&C clause as rule of decision; no private remedy in PKPA context)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) (enforcement measures do not travel with judgments; recognizes limits of FF&C)
- Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948) (recognition vs enforcement; forum law governs incidental rights)
- Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 (1915) (state laws determine incidental rights flowing from out-of-state judgments)
- Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2010) (FF&C claims against state actors; recognition of out-of-state status)
- Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007) (recognition of out-of-state adoptions; circuit split on FF&C§1983)