Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

1 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME 

COURT OF ARKANSAS
 

No. 16–992.  Decided June 26, 2017

 JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 

Summary  reversal  is  usually  reserved  for  cases  where
“the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute, 
and  the  decision  below  is  clearly  in  error.”  Schweiker  v. 
Hansen,  450  U. S.  785,  791  (1981)  (Marshall,  J.,  dissent-
ing).  Respectfully,  I  don’t  believe  this  case  meets  that 
standard. 

To be sure, Obergefell addressed the question whether a
State must recognize same-sex marriages.  But nothing in 
Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question whether 
§20–18–401  of  the  Arkansas  Code,  or  a  state  supreme
court decision upholding it, must go.  The statute in ques-
tion establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the 
biological parents of a  child are listed on the child’s birth 
certificate.  Before  the  state  supreme  court,  the  State 
argued that rational reasons exist for a biology based birth
registration regime, reasons that in no way offend Oberge-
fell—like ensuring government officials can identify public 
health  trends  and  helping  individuals  determine  their
biological  lineage,  citizenship,  or  susceptibility  to  genetic 
disorders.  In  an  opinion  that  did  not  in  any  way  seek  to
defy  but  rather  earnestly  engage  Obergefell,  the  state 
supreme court agreed.  And it is very hard to see what is
wrong  with  this  conclusion  for,  just  as  the  state  court 
recognized,  nothing  in  Obergefell  indicates  that  a  birth 
registration  regime  based  on  biology,  one  no  doubt  with