Document: Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO ARKANSAS No. 16–992. Decided June 26, 2017 PER CURIAM. As this Court explained in Obergefell Hodges, 576 ___ (2015), the Constitution entitles same-sex cou- ples to civil marriage “on same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Id., at (slip op., 23). In decision below, Arkansas Supreme considered effect of that holding on State’s rules governing issuance birth certificates. When a married woman gives Arkansas, state law generally requires name mother’s male spouse appear child’s certificate—regardless his biological relationship child. According court however, Ar- kansas need not extend rule similarly situated couples: The State not, other words, issue certificates including female spouses women who give State. Because differen- tial treatment infringes Obergefell’s commitment pro- vide couples “the constellation benefits States have linked marriage,” id., 17), we reverse court’s judgment. petitioners here are two conceived children through anonymous sperm dona- tion. Leigh Jana Jacobs were Iowa 2010, Terrah Marisa Pavan New Hampshire 2011. each gave child 2015. it came time secure for newborns, couple filled out paperwork listing both parents—Leigh one case, other. Both 2 PAVAN times, Department Health issued bearing only name. department’s rested provision law, Ark. Code §20–18–401 (2014), specifies which individuals will parents state- certificate. “For purposes regis- tration,” statute says, mother is deemed be child.” §20–18–401(e). And “[i]f was either concep- tion or birth,” instructs [her] husband shall entered certificate father §20–18–401(f)(1). There some limited exceptions latter rule—for example, another man may if “mother” “husband” “putative father” all file affidavits vouching putative father’s paternity. Ibid. But parties agree, requirement woman’s her applies cases where by means artificial insemi- nation with help an donor. See Pet. Cert. 4; Brief Opposition 3–4; see also §9–10–201(a) (2015) (“Any born insemination legitimate natural consents writing insemination”). Jacobses Pavans brought suit against director Depart- ment Health—seeking, among things, declara- birth-certificate violates Constitution. trial agreed, relevant portions inconsistent because they “categorically prohibi[t] every . from enjoying spousal available couple.” App. 59a. divided 3 reversed judgment, con- cluding “pass[es] constitutional muster.” 2016 437, 505 S.W.3d 169, 177. view, centers child, marital wife,” so “does run afoul Obergefell.” 178. Two justices dissented maintaining under Oberge- fell “a entitled certif- icate basis S.W.3d, 184 (Brill, C. J., concurring part dissenting part); accord, 190 (Danielson, dissenting). Court’s decision, conclude, denied access “constella- Stat[e] ha[s] marriage.” Obergefell, S., 17). already explained, when conceives insemination, will—indeed, must—list §20–18–401(f )(1); §9–10–201; supra, 2. yet interpreted allows officials those very circumstances omit 177–178. result, lack right listed certificate, document often used im- portant transactions like making medical decisions enrolling school. 5–7 (listing situations parent might required present certificate). proscribes such disparate treatment. there, “exclude condi- tions 4 Indeed, conditions—the “rights, benefits, responsibilities” couples, no less than must access—we expressly identified “birth death certifi- cates.” That accident: Several plaintiffs challenged refusal recognize their chil- dren’s DeBoer Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 398–399 (CA6 2014). considering challenges, held laws unconstitutional extent treated differently couples. equal force §20–18–401. Echoing defends its birth- ground being named benefit attends marriage. Instead, insists, simply device recording parentage—regardless whether married. makes about more just genetics. discussed, ceives way donation—just did here—state place- even though (as concedes) “is definitively circumstances. Opposi- 4.* has thus chosen make —————— * point out, factual scenarios (beyond case) show genetic parentage. For Arkan- sas adopted, places original cate seal issues new certificate—unidentifiable amended version—listing (nonbiological) adoptive parents. §§20–18–406(a)(1), (b) (2014); Admin. 007.12.1–5.5(a) (Apr. 2016). 5 icates mere marker relationships: uses form legal recognition unmarried Having made choice, consistent deny recognition. petition writ certiorari pending motions leave briefs amici curiae granted. judgment reversed, case remanded further proceedings opinion. It ordered. GORSUCH, JUSTICE whom THOMAS ALITO join, dissenting. Summary reversal usually reserved settled stable, facts dispute, below clearly error.” Schweiker Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791 (1981) (Marshall, dissent- ing). Respectfully, I don’t believe meets standard. To sure, addressed question marriages. nothing spoke (let alone clearly) Code, supreme upholding it, go. ques- establishes set designed ensure Before court, argued rational reasons exist biology based registration regime, offend fell—like ensuring government can identify public health trends helping determine lineage, citizenship, susceptibility disorders. opinion any seek defy but rather earnestly engage agreed. hard what wrong conclusion for, recognized, indicates regime biology, doubt many analogues across country throughout his- tory, offends contrary, speak all, prec- edents suggest opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Michael H. Gerald D., 491 110, 124–125 (1989); Tuan Anh Nguyen INS, 533 53, 73 (2001). Neither does anything today’s purport problem registra- regime. So whatever else do summary would exactly seem obvious course. What, then, work here? If there isn’t perhaps concern lies particular regime’s exceptions. turns Arkansas’s general admit certain specific excep- tions. Most importantly our purposes, acknowledges §9–10–201 trols how completed artifi- cial before us. acknowledges, too, provision, written ago, father—and seemingly antic- ipates unions. concern, it’s still should follow least few reasons. First, didn’t actually challenge lawsuit. sought granted relief eliminating authority enforce biology. On appeal, overbroad remedy wasn’t commanded Constitu- And, again, identifies wrong, let Second, petitioners’ lawsuit §9–10–201, repeatedly conceded afforded nonbiological §9– 10–201 equally others kind, agrees, too. Third, proof today fact that, comes adoption (a situation departs registration), tells us adopting eligible placement without respect sexual orientation. Given this, seems far clear war- rants strong medicine reversal. expects happen remand hasn’t happened already. offer remedial suggestion, none leaps mind. Perhaps could memorialize concession fairly chore hardly usual reward seeking faithfully apply, evade, mandates. respectfully dissent.

Category: 3