28 Usc 1738Edit
28 U.S.C. § 1738, commonly cited as 28 U.S.C. § 1738, is the federal statute that implements the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. It requires that the records and judicial proceedings of any court of one state be given the same force in every court of the United States and in other states as they have in the court of origin. In practice, this provision underpins the cohesion of the American legal system by preventing civil and administrative judgments from dissolving when a party moves from one state to another.
The statute sits at the intersection of the Constitution’s Structure of federalism and the daily reality of private legal relations. By guaranteeing interstate recognition of judgments, it reduces the incentive for people to chase favorable jurisdictions, lowers transactional risk for businesses, and preserves the integrity of contracts, property interests, and family-law orders across state lines. See also Full Faith and Credit Clause and Article IV of the United States Constitution for the constitutional backbone, as well as comity as the broader principle informing how states treat each other in civil matters.
Text and scope
- The core idea is that the records and judicial proceedings of one state should be treated in other states as if they originated there. The relevant language is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
- The scope covers civil judgments and the public acts and records of a state court. Although the automatic reach is nationwide, recognizing courts may apply defenses or exceptions based on due process, public policy, and other traditional limits on cross-border recognition.
- The statute interacts with other doctrinal pillars such as conflict of laws and due process. It does not, however, rewrite the substantive law of the issuing state; rather, it determines how that law’s results are treated in other jurisdictions.
Practical effects and domains of operation
- Family and domestic relations: 28 U.S.C. § 1738 is routinely invoked to recognize and enforce cross-state orders and judgments in areas like child support, alimony, and divorce decrees. In these matters, the relevant framework is often supported by additional federal and state statutes such as Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to facilitate enforcement across state lines.
- Civil judgments: Money judgments, injunctions, and other court orders issued in one state are generally enforceable in another, subject to the recognized defenses. This reduces the risk of a judgment becoming moot simply because a debtor relocates.
- Public records and acts: The statute extends to the recognition of certain public acts and records of the issuing state when they impact property interests or other private rights in another state.
Interplay with policy, public interest, and rights
- Federalism and consistency: Supporters emphasize that 28 U.S.C. § 1738 preserves the predictability of private rights—property, contracts, and family obligations—across a union of states. This is seen as essential for orderly commerce and the protection of individuals who relocate or travel.
- Limits and exceptions: Critics point to the existence of public policy and due-process defenses, and to the occasional tension between a state’s policy choices and the recognition of another state’s judgment. The recognized public policy exception is narrow and doctrinally constrained; conservatives arguing for strong interstate enforceability contend that broad exceptions would undercut certainty and forum integrity.
- Public policy debates: When cross-state recognition appears to bind a state to another state’s policy choices, debates arise about sovereignty and policy autonomy. Proponents of robust cross-border recognition stress that 1738 simply enforces lawful judicial outcomes and avoids a patchwork of conflicting obligations; opponents worry about states being dragged into policies they do not favor and about potential inequities for individuals caught in unfriendly jurisdictions. In these discussions, the balance between national coherence and state autonomy is the central issue.
Controversies and debates (from a perspective that emphasizes limited centralization)
- Constitutional design and state sovereignty: The core argument is that the Full Faith and Credit regime should respect each state’s procedures and public policy without enabling a centralized reshaping of local norms. The critics of expansive cross-border enforcement claim that allowing broad cross-state credit can erode local policy experiments and the ability of communities to tailor rules to their own circumstances. Proponents counter that the constitutional design requires reliable recognition of judgments to maintain the integrity of private rights and the rule of law across the union.
- Public policy and due process protections: Some debates focus on how far courts should go in refusing recognition to a judgment on public policy grounds, or due to perceived due-process flaws in the originating proceeding. The conservative position typically holds that due-process guarantees must be respected, but that the threshold for non-recognition should be narrow to avoid undermining interstate commerce and private rights. Critics argue that the lines between due process, public policy, and strategic behavior can become blurry, leading to inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
- Cross-border enforcement vs. policy divergence: A recurring tension is between the desire for uniform enforcement of judgments and the right of states to pursue distinct policy goals (for example, in areas like family law, financial remedies, or civil punishment). The right-of-center viewpoint in these debates often stresses that 1738 should serve as a backbone for legal certainty and economic activity, while still allowing narrow, law-based exceptions where due process or a compelling public interest requires.