Adar v. Smith, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7545

Mickey Smith and Oren Adar adopted Louisiana-born Infant J in New York in 2006 and sought to have his Louisiana birth certificate issued with both adoptive parents listed.
Louisiana Rev. Stat. § 40:76(A) allows a new birth record upon presentation of a certified out-of-state adoption decree; § 40:76(C) directs showing the names of the adoptive parents.
Registrar Darlene Smith refused to issue a two-name birth certificate, arguing 'adoptive parents' in § 40:76(C) means married couples; she offered to list only one adoptive parent.
Smith and Adar sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Full Faith and Credit (FFC) Clause and equal protection.
The district court ruled for Smith and Adar on the FFC claim; the en banc Fifth Circuit later reversed on the FFC issue and remanded for dismissal, while addressing standing and the equal protection claim.
The court held that, although appellees have standing and federal question jurisdiction to consider whether a § 1983 claim lies, their complaint fails to state a cognizable FFC claim and fails to state an equal protection claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the FF&C claim support a §1983 action against the Registrar?	Adar/Smith argued FF&C gives private right enforceable via §1983.	Registrar argued FF&C creates no private federal right or remedy under §1983.	No cognizable §1983 FF&C claim.
Is there jurisdiction or standing to hear FF&C claims here?	Appellees have standing to seek relief and federal jurisdiction over a FF&C claim.	Challenged standing and lack of federal question jurisdiction.	Appellees have standing and jurisdiction to consider the claim, but claim invalid on the merits.
Did Louisiana's enforcement of birth records comply with FF&C by recognizing the New York decree?	Recognition of the New York adoption decree should compel a two-name birth certificate.	Louisiana may enforce its own vital statistics rules and need not duplicate out-of-state procedures.	FF&C does not compel two-name birth certificates; recognition does not override Louisiana law.
Does the Equal Protection Clause require listing both adoptive parents on an out-of-state adoption?	Unmarried adoptive parents should be treated equally with married adoptive parents.	State has rational basis to prefer married families for stability and to align with Louisiana law.	Equal protection claim fails; rational basis supports the state’s approach.

Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1998) (FFC enforcement limits; enforcement measures do not travel with a judgment)
Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1988) (FFC is a rule for courts, not a private federal remedy)
Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1915) (FFC does not compel forum-state to grant every benefit of foreign judgments)
Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2010) (FFC limits on recognizing foreign judgments in state enforcement)
Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007) (circuit holding that certain out-of-state adoptions cannot be categorically non-recognized)
Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1948) (recognition vs enforcement; marital status effects in rights and duties)
Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1963) (FFC as nationwide force via res judicata)
Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. N.C. Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1982) (FFC requires forum-state to apply its own rules to recognition of judgments)
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1943) (FFC as the export of local res judicata policy)