Evening star., 1945-10-14
Law Governing Divorces
Unchanged Through Years
Despite CONFUSION Among Average Citizens,
Supreme Co>rt Rulings Show Control Over
Writs Remains With States
By Jean NJ. Boardman.

(Mr. Bodrdnldn has been q member
OF the District Bar for 21 years, spe-
ctdliztng in diUorce practice. Ten
years ago he obtained an injunction
banning the "Merican diuorce racket"
In Washington, and also Uon the first
case here holding a Mexican diuorce
to be inpaIid)
Reno Divorce Refused Recognition"
Supreme Court Holds Reno Divorces
Valid" Reno Divorce No Defense to
Bigamy Charge Says Supreme Court"
These and similar headlines during the
past few years, together with the an
nouncement last Monday that the
Supreme Court had declined to enter
tain appeals IN four cases involving the
validity Of divorces, have left the gen.
eral public bewildered and wondering
where the law, if any, now stands.
If the average citizen needs anything
further to render him completely baffied,
it is to be told that the law concerning
the validity of divorces today is just
the same as it has been without change
since the beginning of this country.
That, however, for all practical purposes
Is the fact
Furthermore, the basic law is rather
simple, being merely that the courts of
no State have jurisdiction to grant
valid divorce unless one of the parties
is citizen of that State.
State Has Vital Interest.
This rule is predicated upon the fun
damental principles that marriage cre-
ates status in which the State has
vital interest, that to each State be-
longs the sovereign and exclusive right
to regulate the status of its citizens, and
that it Is imperative to the preservation
OF its social order that no State permit
another State to interfere with the
domestic relations of its citizens.
A person is citizen of the State in
which he is domiciled or, in nonlegal
language. in which he maintains his
permanent home.
During the early days of this Republic
divorces were rare, but as early as 1906
the highest court of the State of New
York refused to recognize as valid
divorce obtained by New York woman
in Vermont; and in 1877 the highest
court Of Massachusetts, made a man
support his wife Notwithstanding that
he had obtained divorce in Vermont
at time when he was a citizen of
Massachusetts,. From the time of these
earliest reported cases until now the
highest courts of the various States of
the Union without exception have held
that divorce obtained in a State
where neither husband nor wife is a
citizen Is not entitled to recognition as
q matter of right and they have de-
clared such divorces to be invalid when
ever 1t has been necessary to do so in
order to protect the public interest or to
prevent injustice. The Constitution of
the United States makes it mandatory
upon all the States to give full faith and
credit to the judgments and DEGREES of
the courts of the other States, but long
ago the Supreme Court of the United
States pointed out that this constitu-
tional provision applies only to valid
judgments and DEGREES and has no ap-
plication to divorces which are invalid
because obtained in a State where
neither spouse is domicilei. From this
position the Supreme Court has never
changed.
Divorced in Reno.
With the law in this firmly settled
condition, the Supreme Court of the
United States on December 81, 1912,
handed down its decision in what is now
called the first Williams case. In North
Carolina married man named VIII
liams and the wife of another man had
become involved with each other, had
gone to Reno where, after remaining in
tourist camp for six weeks, they COM
menced actions for divorce, claiming to
be citizens of Nevada had obtained the
divorces in default of any contest by
their respective spouses. had immedi-
| ately married each other and had then
| gone back to North Carolina, there to
live together in the ostensible relation
| ship of husband and wife. All of this
was considered in North Carolina to be
scandalous and both parties were in
dicted for the criminal offense of big
amouS cohabitation.