Pavan v. Smith
United States Supreme Court
582 U.S. 563, 137 S. Ct. 2075 (2017)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Leigh and Jana Jacobs (plaintiffs) married in Iowa in 2010, and Terrah and Marisa Pavan (plaintiffs) married in New Hampshire in 2011. While living in Arkansas, each same-sex couple decided to have a baby using an anonymous sperm donor. Leigh carried the Jacobses’ baby, and Terrah carried the Pavans’ baby. When the babies were born, each couple filed for birth certificates, listing both spouses as parents. However, the Arkansas Department of Health (department) issued birth certificates listing only the birth mothers’ names. For opposite-sex spouses, an Arkansas statute required that a birth mother’s husband be listed as a parent on her child’s birth certificate, even if the child was conceived by artificial insemination using an anonymous sperm donor. The Jacobses and Pavans sued Nathaniel Smith (defendant), the department’s director, seeking a declaration that the statute violated the Constitution because it categorically prevented same-sex spouses from enjoying a benefit available to opposite-sex spouses. A state trial court found the statute unconstitutional. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, upholding the law on the basis that its focus was the biological relationship between a child and each parent, not on the marital relationship between the parents. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Gorsuch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
