Constitution

Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit

Section 1 requires each state to honor the public acts, records and court judgments of every other state, and lets Congress set how they are proved.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In plain English

The command. Each state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." A judgment obtained in Ohio is enforceable in Texas. A marriage license or birth certificate from one state is respected by the rest.

Congress's role. Congress may by "general Laws" prescribe how such acts, records and proceedings are proved and what effect they have. Congress did so first in 1790 and again in 1804.

The clause turns thirteen separate legal systems into one country for the purposes of ordinary private life: debts, judgments, divorces and property do not vanish at a state line. It does not make every state adopt every other state's laws. It requires recognition of court judgments, and applies somewhat differently to a state's statutes.

What the Founders said

The Articles of Confederation had a similar provision, and the Framers strengthened it by giving Congress power to define effect. At the Convention, the clause was proposed by Madison and others who wanted the states to recognize each other's judgments without relitigation.

In Federalist No. 42, Madison called the power to prescribe the effect of public acts, records and proceedings "an evident and valuable improvement" on the corresponding clause of the Articles of Confederation, whose meaning he described as "extremely indeterminate."

How the courts have read it

  • Mills v. Duryee (1813): a state judgment must be given the same effect in other states as it has in the state that rendered it.
  • Williams v. North Carolina (1945): a divorce decree of one state may be re-examined elsewhere if the court lacked a true domicile basis.
  • Baker v. General Motors Corp. (1998): a state's judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, but not an enforcement power over a non-party's activities in another state.
  • Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019): a state may not be sued in the courts of another state without its consent (overruling an earlier case).
  • Pavan v. Smith (2017) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): the Court required states to recognize same-sex marriages, in the latter case under the 14th Amendment rather than this clause.

Why it matters now

Full Faith and Credit is a plain structural clause with real consequences. It makes legal obligations portable across the country and lets citizens rely on the courts of their home state. Without it, every judgment would be an invitation to relitigate in a more favorable forum.

It also illustrates the balance of the federal system. States keep their own laws and policies. The clause does not turn the most permissive state's rules into a national standard, and the courts have long held that a state need not apply another state's law that violates its own public policy. The clause requires respect for final judgments, not surrender of sovereignty.

Debates over gun-carry permits, marriage recognition and professional licenses all raise the question of how far one state's decisions must travel. Congress has power under the clause's second sentence to legislate on effect, and the use of that power has been limited. The question deserves open argument, with attention to the text and the compromise it records.

Latest on this topic