Full Faith and Credit
The United States Constitution contains what is known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which provides:
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.
This constitutional provision requires the various U.S. states to recognize the legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of every other state in the union. In order to implement it, Congress enacted a statute that provides:
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
Although the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to both state laws and judgments entered in state court proceedings, it is invoked primarily to enforce judgments. In this way, the clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere.
As the Supreme Court has observed, “[o]ur precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments.” Baker v. GMC, 522 U.S. 222, 232 (1998). “In numerous cases this Court has held that credit must be given to the judgment of another state although the forum would not be required to entertain the suit on which the judgment was founded.” Id. (quotation omitted). “The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel ‘a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.’” Id. (quotation omitted).
“Regarding judgments, however, the full faith and credit obligation is exacting.” Baker, 522 U.S. at 233. “A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.” Id. “For claim and issue preclusion (res judicata) purposes, in other words, the judgment of the rendering State gains nationwide force.” Id. “[O]ur decisions support no roving ‘public policy exception’ to the full faith and credit due judgments.” Id. (emphasis in original).
“The Court has never placed equity decrees outside the full faith and credit domain.” Baker, 522 U.S. at 234. “Equity decrees for the payment of money have long been considered equivalent to judgments at law entitled to nationwide recognition.” Id. “We see no reason why the preclusive effects of an adjudication on parties and those ‘in privity’ with them, i.e., claim preclusion and issue preclusion (res judicata and collateral estoppel), should differ depending solely upon the type of relief sought in a civil action.” Id.
“Full faith and credit, however, does not mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments.” Baker, 522 U.S. at 235. “Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment as preclusive effects do; such measures remain subject to the even-handed control of forum law.” Id. “Orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority.” Id.