582 U.S. 563 (2017)
Two same-sex couples, the Jacobses and the Pavans, married in other states before residing in Arkansas.1 Leigh and Jana Jacobs married in Iowa in 2010, while Terrah and Marisa Pavan married in New Hampshire in 2011. Both couples used anonymous sperm donation to conceive children, and Leigh Jacobs along with Terrah Pavan each gave birth to a child in Arkansas in 2015.2
When the time came to obtain birth certificates, the couples submitted paperwork naming both spouses as the child's parents.3 The Arkansas Department of Health issued birth certificates listing only the birth mother's name for each child.4 This action followed from a state statute providing that the mother is the woman who gives birth and that, if she was married at the time of conception or birth, her husband's name must appear as the father.5
The statute's application extends to situations involving artificial insemination with donor sperm where the husband has given written consent, even though the husband has no biological connection to the child.6 The couples initiated litigation in Arkansas state court against the director of the Department of Health.7 They requested declaratory relief establishing that the birth certificate provisions violate constitutional requirements.8
The trial court sided with the couples and found the statutory sections inconsistent with prior precedent.9 On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision in a divided ruling.10 The state supreme court determined that the statute focuses on biological relationships rather than marital status.11 Dissenting justices in the state court expressed the view that same-sex married couples should receive birth certificates on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples.12
Whether Arkansas may deny married same-sex couples the right to have both spouses listed on a child's birth certificate in circumstances where state law requires listing the male spouse of a birth mother on the certificate?13
The Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, including the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.14
No. When a married woman in Arkansas conceives a child by means of artificial insemination, the State requires the name of her male spouse on the child’s birth certificate even though he is not the biological father.15 The Jacobses and Pavans are similarly situated same-sex couples who conceived through anonymous sperm donation, yet the Arkansas Department of Health issued birth certificates listing only the birth mother’s name.16 This differential treatment infringes Obergefell’s commitment to provide same-sex couples the constellation of benefits linked to marriage.17
Arkansas may not deny married same-sex couples the right to have both spouses listed on a child's birth certificate in those circumstances.18
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Thomas And Justice Alito
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented from the summary reversal.19 He argued that summary reversal is usually reserved for cases where the law is settled and the decision below is clearly in error.20 Nothing in Obergefell spoke clearly to whether the Arkansas statute or the state supreme court decision upholding it must be invalidated.21
The state supreme court had earnestly engaged with Obergefell and found rational reasons for a biology-based birth registration regime.22 Gorsuch noted that petitioners did not challenge the artificial insemination statute directly.23 The State has repeatedly conceded that the benefits afforded nonbiological parents must be afforded equally to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.24
Summary reversal is not warranted when the law is not clearly in error.25
Whether a state birth-certificate regime that treats married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples denies those couples the constellation of benefits linked to marriage?26
A State may not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, and this includes access to birth certificates as one of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities linked to marriage.27
Yes. The Arkansas law requires listing the male spouse on the birth certificate for opposite-sex couples using anonymous sperm donation but allows omission of the female spouse for same-sex couples in the same circumstances.28 This denies married same-sex couples the same right as opposite-sex parents to be listed on a child’s birth certificate.29 Obergefell expressly identified birth certificates as among the benefits to which same-sex couples must have access on the same terms as opposite-sex couples.30
A state birth-certificate regime that treats married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples denies those couples the constellation of benefits linked to marriage.31
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Thomas And Justice Alito
Justice Gorsuch maintained that nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology offends the Constitution.32 The state supreme court had recognized that such regimes have many analogues across the country and throughout history.33 In his view, this Court's precedents like Michael H. v. Gerald D. suggest just the opposite conclusion from the majority.34 Gorsuch further observed that petitioners had not challenged the artificial insemination statute directly in their lawsuit.
He concluded that it is very hard to see what is wrong with the state supreme court's decision upholding the statute, making summary reversal inappropriate.35