Key Takeaways

  • The full faith and credit clause definition comes from Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and mandates states to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.
  • This clause plays a key role in ensuring consistency in legal recognition across state lines, including judgments, contracts, and family law decisions.
  • Federal bonds guaranteed by the government are often described as backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States, indicating a strong repayment obligation.
  • Congress holds the authority to regulate how the full faith and credit clause is applied among states.
  • Certain exceptions and limitations apply, especially when state public policy conflicts arise or when jurisdiction was improperly exercised.
  • Important legislation like the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act strengthen the clause’s enforcement.
  • Readers seeking legal assistance related to inter-state legal matters can connect with top attorneys on UpCounsel.The full faith and credit definition is the obligation that every state has to recognize and accept other states' public records, judicial proceedings, and legislative acts. It may also involve the government's agreement to repay debts. It's provided for in the U.S. Constitution by what's called the “Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

What Full Faith and Credit Means

If the United States backs a bond with full faith and credit, the U.S. government is obligated to repay the bond and must find a way to do so. The types of bonds known as full-faith-and-credit-bonds include Ginnie Mae bonds and U.S. Treasury securities, as well as some other debt securities.

While some municipalities may attach full faith and credit to the bonds they issue, this credit means less than the backing of the federal government.

The Constitutional clause regarding full faith and credit helps to ensure that court decisions in one state will be honored in other states. The clause is primarily used to enforce judgments.

Origins and Constitutional Basis

The full faith and credit clause definition originates in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

This language was included to promote legal harmony among the newly formed states after independence, fostering mutual respect and unity. The clause empowers Congress to prescribe the manner in which such acts are proved and their legal effect, giving it regulatory control over the scope of interstate legal recognition.

Purpose of Full Faith and Credit

The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to unite the newborn country when they wrote this clause. They also wanted to allow states to keep some of their autonomy. To achieve this, it was necessary to guarantee that one court's judicial decisions and judgments would be honored by any other state. This was essential for creating one union out of many jurisdictions.

The clause also prevents someone from “forum shopping,” or bringing a suit in another state if he or she doesn't get the desired outcome in his or her home state. It also prevents individuals from moving to other states in order to avoid court judgments.

The U.S. Supreme Court has three contexts in which it uses the clause to govern state-court proceedings, which are as follows:

  • To determine when a state must take jurisdiction for claims arising in other states
  • To limit how local state law applies to another state's laws in disputes involving multiple states
  • To recognize and enforce judgments rendered in sister-state courts

The Supreme Court has ruled that one court can't refuse to hear claims arising under the laws of another state.

State courts usually apply their own rules, including their individual statutes of limitations, but there are instances when one state's substantive law should give way to another state's substantive law.

How the Supreme Court Interprets the Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the modern understanding of the full faith and credit clause. It typically evaluates three core issues:

  1. Whether a judgment or record was final and valid in the original state.
  2. Whether the original court had proper jurisdiction.
  3. Whether enforcement would violate the public policy of the forum state.

While the clause encourages uniformity, courts may refuse to apply another state's laws if doing so would violate deeply rooted public policies. However, such exceptions are rare and subject to strict scrutiny.

Examples of Full Faith and Credit in Action

Historically, child custody determinations had fallen under state court jurisdiction. Prior to the 1970s, other states didn't enforce full faith and credit on these determinations. Due to this, divorced parents sometimes sought more favorable rulings in other states. This provided incentives for unhappy parents to take a child and move to another state in order to petition for custody. Therefore, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act was adopted in 1968 to prevent these types of situations.

Another act that extends full faith and credit is The Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This involves protective order enforcement. Previously, protective orders were only enforced in the state in which they originated. This Act gave victims who moved to another state added protection.

When a court issues a valid judgment, and the involved parties have proper notice of the action, the clause requires the judgment to receive the same effect in any other state in addition to the one where the judgment was originally entered.

An individual who obtains a judgment in one jurisdiction may petition another state's court to enforce that judgment. In this instance, the issues are not litigated again in the other state. Instead, the second state has an obligation to fully recognize and honor the first state's judgment.

Although the U.S. is made up of 50 states, with individual state laws shaping much of each one's government, there are instances where all states are expected to follow the same rules. This applies in the case of full faith and credit.

It prevents a number of legal issues that could come up if one state didn't recognize the validity of another state's judgments. This clause helps ensure uniformity and provides a measure of protection for certain groups as well. In this way, all of the states behave like a cohesive unit.

Full Faith and Credit in the Context of Debt

Outside of court rulings, the phrase full faith and credit also refers to financial backing. When the federal government issues debt instruments, such as Treasury bonds, it guarantees repayment using the “full faith and credit of the United States.” This indicates that the government will use its taxation and revenue-generating powers to honor its obligations, making such instruments among the safest investments.

At the municipal level, cities and states may issue general obligation bonds backed by their own full faith and credit. However, these do not carry the same weight as federal guarantees and may be subject to local economic risks.

Congressional Authority and Legislation

Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the application of the full faith and credit clause. Over the years, Congress has enacted legislation to clarify and enhance its implementation, including:

  • 28 U.S.C. § 1738: Codifies the clause and provides that records and judicial proceedings “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States.”
  • Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA): Adopted by 49 states to ensure that child custody decisions are recognized and enforced across state lines.
  • Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): Mandates that protection orders issued in one state be enforceable in all others.

These laws reinforce the principle that states must honor each other’s legal determinations unless explicitly excused.

Limits and Exceptions to Enforcement

Although robust, the clause is not absolute. States are not required to enforce:

  • Non-final judgments: Preliminary court orders may not be enforceable elsewhere.
  • Laws contrary to public policy: For example, if a marriage or legal contract violates strong moral or legal standards in a state, that state may refuse to recognize it.
  • Invalid jurisdictional claims: If a court did not have proper jurisdiction, other states are not bound to honor its judgment.

An example includes a state refusing to enforce a divorce decree if the court granting it did not have proper residency jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the full faith and credit clause definition in simple terms? It’s a constitutional rule that requires each U.S. state to recognize and respect the laws, court decisions, and records of other states.

2. Does full faith and credit apply to marriages and divorces? Yes, valid marriages and divorces from one state must generally be recognized by all other states, provided they meet jurisdictional requirements.

3. Are there any limits to the full faith and credit clause? Yes. States can deny enforcement if the original court lacked jurisdiction or if enforcement violates strong public policy.

4. How does Congress influence the full faith and credit clause? Congress can regulate how states prove and enforce out-of-state judgments and laws through legislation like 28 U.S.C. § 1738.

5. What does it mean when a bond is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.? It means the federal government is fully committed to repaying the bond’s principal and interest, using its taxing power if necessary.

If you need help with legal matters, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.