## Facts

- Tennessee replaced a prior regime that kept adoption records sealed absent a court order finding disclosure in the child’s or public’s best interest.
- The new statute made adoption records available to adopted persons age 21 or older (and their legal representatives), with additional identifying information available to certain relatives only with the adoptee’s written consent.
- The statute also created a “contact veto” allowing specified relatives to register to prevent contact by the adoptee even if records were disclosed.
- Plaintiffs included two birth mothers, an adoptive couple, and a licensed child-placing agency, who challenged application of the new access rules to adoptions completed under the prior statute.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop the statute from taking effect, asserting federal constitutional privacy and due process violations (and parallel state-constitutional claims).
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether providing adult adoptees access to adoption records violates a fundamental federal constitutional right to privacy of birth parents, adoptive parents, or agencies (familial, reproductive, or informational confidentiality).
2. Whether applying the statute to earlier adoptions violates due process by impairing vested rights or reasonable reliance on permanent secrecy.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the complaint did not state a viable federal constitutional claim because no fundamental right protects indefinite state secrecy of adoption records.
- The court dismissed the federal constitutional claims.
- The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims, leaving them for state courts.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process privacy protections are limited to specific, recognized categories; they do not include a general right to prevent disclosure of state-held adoption records to adult adoptees.
- Decisional privacy (choices about procreation and family formation) does not create a constitutional entitlement to perpetual control over later access to government records generated by those choices.
- Any constitutional interest in informational confidentiality is narrow; limited disclosure to a defined class (adult adoptees and, in some circumstances, close relatives with the adoptee’s consent) does not trigger strict scrutiny absent a fundamental right.
- Adoption is governed by statute; participation occurs within a heavily regulated framework subject to legislative change, and prior sealing procedures do not create an immutable right to permanent anonymity.
- Retroactive alteration of record-access procedures does not violate due process where the earlier law did not confer a vested right to perpetual secrecy.
- For preliminary injunctive relief, lack of likelihood of success on the merits of federal claims supports denial, alongside consideration of harms and public interest.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Tennessee’s broadened access to adoption records for adult adoptees, concluding that the federal Constitution does not guarantee birth parents, adoptive parents, or agencies a right to indefinite confidentiality in adoption records and that retroactive application did not violate due process.


Doe v. Sundquist, 106 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 1997)