Also known as: full faith and credit · Article IV, Section 1 · FFCC
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional command requiring each state to give effect to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. The clause is implemented by a federal statute that prescribes authentication methods and mandates that authenticated sister-state judgments receive the same force they possess in the rendering state.
Morgan obtained a final money judgment against Blake in a State BB court. Blake later relocated to State CC, where a second court entered an inconsistent judgment on the identical claim. Morgan asked the State CC court to enforce the earlier State BB judgment. The court was required to treat the authenticated State BB judgment as conclusive and to enforce it according to its terms.
Bay Logic secured an injunction in State A requiring its former engineer Jerry to return proprietary source code. Jerry moved to State B and began working for a rival firm. Bay Logic sought enforcement of the State A injunction in State B court. The State B court was obligated to give the valid State A judgment the same effect it would receive in State A.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff obtained a judgment in State X that attached shares of stock held by the defendant in a Delaware corporation. The defendant challenged enforcement of that attachment in a Delaware proceeding. Delaware courts were required to accord the State X judgment the same preclusive and enforcement effect it would receive in State X.
A spouse obtained a divorce decree in State Iowa after establishing domicile there. The other spouse later challenged recognition of that decree in a second state. The second state was required to give the Iowa decree the same force and effect it possessed in Iowa, including the finding of domicile.
A husband obtained an ex parte divorce in Connecticut after moving there from New York. His wife later appeared in a Virginia proceeding and contested the Connecticut decree. Virginia was required to give the Connecticut judgment the same effect it would receive in Connecticut once the wife had received notice and an opportunity to litigate domicile.
A California resident obtained a judgment against a Texas insurer on an insurance contract. The insurer refused to satisfy the judgment in Texas. Texas courts were required to enforce the California judgment to the same extent it would be enforced in California.
Yes. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to give a valid, final judgment of another state the same effect the judgment would receive in the rendering state. A later inconsistent judgment in the second state does not override the earlier valid judgment.
Supporting sources
No. Public-policy objections do not excuse a state from enforcing a valid sister-state judgment. The clause treats the rendering state's judgment as conclusive even when the forum state would have denied the same relief under its own law.
Supporting sources
A federal court must give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect the judgment would receive in the courts of the state that rendered it. The full-faith-and-credit statute directs federal courts to apply the rendering state's preclusion rules rather than federal common-law preclusion principles.
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…