Also known as: full faith & credit · full faith and credit clause · FF&C · Article IV Section 1
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional command requiring each state to recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. The command is implemented by federal statute directing that properly authenticated state judgments receive the same preclusive effect in every court as they receive in the rendering state.
Fatou Fall obtained a final money judgment in State A after a contested trial. She properly authenticated the judgment under the clerk-and-seal requirements and filed it in State B to collect against assets located there. The State B court gave the judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive in State A courts.
Francesca Fiore obtained a divorce decree in State C that included a property division. She presented the decree in State D where her former spouse now resides. The State D court enforced the property division exactly as State C courts would have done.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Farah Fox sued in State E and obtained a default judgment after the court found minimum contacts. When she sought enforcement in State F, the defendant argued lack of jurisdiction. The State F court accepted the State E jurisdictional finding as conclusive under full faith and credit.
Felicity French obtained an ex parte divorce in State G. Her former spouse later challenged enforcement in State H on jurisdictional grounds. The State H court gave the decree full faith and credit once it determined the rendering court had proper domicile jurisdiction.
Francisco Frost and Forrest Falconer obtained a valid same-sex marriage in State I. When they later moved to State J, State J officials refused to recognize the marriage for state-law purposes. The couple obtained a federal judgment requiring State J to give the marriage the same effect it receives in State I.
Franklin Foundry obtained a default judgment in State K against an insurer that had mailed a policy into the state. The insurer resisted enforcement in State L. The State L court enforced the judgment because the rendering court had sufficient contacts to support jurisdiction.
The party must present a properly authenticated copy of the judgment under the clerk-and-seal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Once authenticated, the forum court must give the judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive in the rendering state.
Supporting sources
No. The constitutional command and implementing statute require recognition regardless of the forum state's public policy. The only defenses are lack of jurisdiction in the rendering court or denial of due process.
Supporting sources
Yes. Federal courts must give a state judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive in the courts of the rendering state. This rule applies in diversity actions and prevents relitigation of claims or issues already decided.
Supporting sources
…when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, authorizing unreasonable…