Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. 563 (2017)

Facts

  • Two married same-sex couples in Arkansas had children in 2015 through anonymous sperm donation; in each couple, one spouse gave birth.
  • Arkansas law required that when a married woman gives birth, her “husband” be entered on the child’s birth certificate as the father, including when he was not the biological parent due to anonymous donor conception.
  • Each couple completed hospital paperwork listing both spouses as parents, but the Arkansas Department of Health issued birth certificates listing only the birth mothers and excluding the non-birth spouses.
  • The couples alleged the exclusion denied them marital parental recognition and impeded use of birth certificates in common legal and practical contexts (e.g., medical decisions and school enrollment).

Issues

  1. Whether a state that lists a married woman’s nonbiological husband on a child’s birth certificate must, under the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted in Obergefell v. Hodges, provide the same recognition to a married woman’s wife when the child is conceived by anonymous sperm donation.

Decision

  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court in a per curiam decision, and remanded.
  • The Court held that Arkansas’s birth-certificate scheme violated the Constitution by denying married same-sex couples the same spousal-parent recognition afforded to married different-sex couples.
  • Because Arkansas used birth certificates to recognize marital parentage beyond biology (including listing nonbiological husbands), it could not deny the same recognition to same-sex spouses.
  • Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, objecting to summary reversal and disputing that Obergefell clearly controlled a birth-certificate regime framed as biology-based.
  • Under Obergefell, states must provide same-sex couples civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, including equal access to benefits and legal recognitions linked to marriage.
  • When a state chooses to use birth certificates to confer or recognize nonbiological parental status based on marriage, equal protection and due process principles bar denying that recognition to married same-sex couples.
  • A state may not characterize birth certificates as purely biological records to justify unequal treatment when its own statutory scheme already departs from biology for married different-sex couples.

Conclusion

The Court required Arkansas to provide married same-sex spouses the same birth-certificate parental recognition it provides married different-sex spouses, reaffirming that Obergefell applies to marital incidents and benefits beyond the marriage license itself.