Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

challenge  §9–10–201,  the  State  has  repeatedly  conceded 
that the benefits afforded nonbiological parents under §9–
10–201  must  be  afforded  equally  to  both  same-sex  and 
opposite-sex  couples.  So  that  in  this  particular  case  and
all  others  of  its  kind,  the  State  agrees,  the  female  spouse
of the birth mother must be listed on birth certificates too. 
Third, further proof still of the state of the law in Arkan-
sas  today  is  the  fact  that,  when  it  comes  to  adoption  (a
situation not present in this case but another one in which 
Arkansas  departs  from  biology  based  registration),  the 
State  tells  us  that  adopting  parents  are  eligible  for 
placement  on  birth  certificates  without  respect  to  sexual 
orientation. 

Given  all  this,  it  seems  far  from  clear  what  here  war-
rants the strong medicine of summary reversal.  Indeed, it 
is  not  even  clear  what  the  Court  expects  to  happen  on 
remand that hasn’t happened already.  The Court does not 
offer  any  remedial  suggestion,  and  none  leaps  to  mind. 
Perhaps  the  state  supreme  court  could  memorialize  the
State’s  concession  on  §9–10–201,  even  though  that  law 
wasn’t  fairly  challenged  and  such  a  chore  is  hardly  the
usual  reward  for  seeking  faithfully  to  apply,  not  evade,
this Court’s mandates. 
I respectfully dissent.