Pavan v. Smith
137 S. Ct. 2075
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Petitioners are two married same-sex couples (Jacobses and Pavans); each couple used anonymous sperm donation and a married female partner gave birth in Arkansas in 2015.
- Arkansas law (Ark. Code §20‑18‑401 and §9‑10‑201) generally lists a married woman’s husband on the child’s birth certificate, including in cases of artificial insemination.
- Petitioners completed paperwork listing both spouses as parents, but the Arkansas Department of Health issued birth certificates naming only the birth mothers.
- Petitioners sued in state court seeking a declaration that the statute/its application violated the Constitution under Obergefell v. Hodges; the trial court ruled for petitioners.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute focuses on biological parentage and does not violate Obergefell; two justices dissented.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court, and remanded, holding the differential treatment violates Obergefell’s guarantee that same‑sex couples receive the same constellation of benefits tied to marriage, including birth certificates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas may refuse to list a married same‑sex spouse on a child’s birth certificate while listing a married opposite‑sex spouse in identical circumstances | Same‑sex spouses must receive the same birth‑certificate recognition as opposite‑sex spouses under Obergefell | Birth certificates record biological parentage; state may maintain a biology‑based registration regime | Reversed: Arkansas may not deny married same‑sex couples the same birth‑certificate recognition; Obergefell requires equal treatment |
| Whether listing a spouse on a birth certificate is a marital benefit protected by Obergefell | Birth/death certificates are among the rights/benefits Obergefell identified that must be equal | The State says listing is not a marital benefit but a biological record | Held that Arkansas treats birth certificates as more than biological records (e.g., husband listed despite non‑paternity), so Obergefell applies |
| Whether a facially biology‑based statute can exclude nonbiological parents when statute contains exceptions (e.g., artificial insemination, adoption) | Petitioners argue the statute’s application (and its exceptions) must be applied equally to same‑sex couples | State argues the statute’s biology focus is rational and within state power; exceptions reflect legitimate aims | Held that Arkansas’s practice—applying exceptions to opposite‑sex but not same‑sex couples—violates Obergefell’s equal treatment mandate |
| Proper remedy and scope of relief | Petitioners sought relief preventing enforcement of the discriminatory application of the birth‑registration statute | State contends remedy was overbroad and that specific statutes (e.g., §9‑10‑201) were not challenged | Court summarily reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion (did not prescribe detailed remedy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __ (2015) (same‑sex couples entitled to same terms and conditions of civil marriage, including associated benefits)
- DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (challenges to birth‑certificate refusal by same‑sex couples discussed in Obergefell litigation)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (precedent on parental‑status/biological‑relation principles)
- Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) (treatment of parentage distinctions under constitutional review)