Smith v. Pavan
2016 Ark. 437
Ark.2016Background
- Three married female couples (Pavan, Jacobs, Kassel/Scott) sought ADH-issued birth certificates listing both spouses for children born in Arkansas after conception via anonymous donor insemination; ADH refused to list the nonbiological spouses.
- Appellees sued, seeking declaratory relief that Ark. Code §§ 20-18-401(e),(f) and 20-18-406(a)(2) violate due process and equal protection post-Obergefell, and an injunction directing ADH to amend birth certificates.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted relief, struck or reinterpreted portions of the statutes, and ordered corrected birth certificates; it relied in part on a prior injunction in Wright v. Smith.
- Director Nathaniel Smith appealed, arguing Wright did not preclude relitigation, Obergefell did not resolve birth-certificate statutes, and the statutes are constitutional as written and focused on biological parentage.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and dismissed: it held Wright’s orders did not plainly address birth-certificate issuance so collateral estoppel did not apply; Obergefell did not decide the statutory questions here; the challenged statutes are facially constitutional under due-process and equal-protection principles as applied to the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusive effect of Wright injunction (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Wright granted broad injunctive relief requiring ADH to issue birth certificates to same-sex married parents; relitigation barred | Wright orders did not specifically address birth certificates as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 65(d); no notice to appeal | No preclusion: Wright did not clearly address birth-certificate issues, so collateral estoppel does not apply |
| Whether Obergefell resolved constitutionality of birth-certificate statutes | Obergefell’s recognition of marital benefits (including birth certificates) means statutes must permit listing both same-sex spouses | Obergefell did not expressly or impliedly address Arkansas’ birth-certificate framework; it does not automatically rewrite statutes | Obergefell does not itself decide these statutes’ meaning; it did not resolve the specific statutory issues here |
| Due-process challenge to §§ 20-18-401(e),(f) & 20-18-406(a)(2) | Denying listing of nonbiological same-sex spouse deprives parents/children of fundamental rights recognized in Obergefell and parenting cases | Statutes aim to truthfully record biological parentage; naming nonbiological spouse on certificate is not a fundamental interest under due process | Statutes do not facially violate due process on the record; listing biologically truthful parentage is not a fundamental right requiring reversal |
| Equal-protection challenge to same statutes | Statutes discriminate against same-sex spouses by allowing opposite-sex spouses to be listed as parent by operation of marriage | Classification reflects biological differences and serves important governmental objectives (public-health statistics, genetic/medical info); means are substantially related | Statutes survive equal-protection challenge as facially applied: classification is substantially related to important objectives (sex-neutral biological basis), so constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex marriage recognized nationwide; marriage’s associated benefits include birth certificates)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (Due Process protects parental rights regarding care and custody)
- Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2001) (equal-protection scrutiny for classifications involving biological differences)
- Smith v. Wright, 2015 Ark. 298 (Ark. 2015) (prior Pulaski County injunction and appeal dismissed as moot; court examined scope of that injunction)