28 U.S.C. § 1738C
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
A prior section 1738C, added Pub. L. 104–199, § 2(a),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “21 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. This provision expresses Congress’s desire to prevent a situation where one 22 state would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed and recognized in a different 23 state.”
Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956 (R.I. 2007). “We also directed the certifying justice of the Family Court, based on his findings of fact, to determine: (1) whether or not the case presented an actual case or controversy; (2) whether or not the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution was relevant to…”
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). “See 28 U. S. C. §1738C. Section 3 is at issue here.”
In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, 2021 CO 3 (Colo. 2021). “In the years that followed, most states adopted statutes and state constitutional amendments both prohibiting same-sex marriage within state borders and barring recognition of same-sex marriages entered elsewhere.”
Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). “010 to describe marriage as a civil contract that is valid only if "between a male and a female" and to provide in RCW 26.04.020(1)(c) that a marriage contract is prohibited for couples "other than a male and a female.”
Godfrey v. Spano, 920 N.E.2d 328 (NY 2009). “[2] The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides, in effect, that the Full Faith and Credit Clause will not operate to require recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states ( see 28 USC § 1738C). DOMA does not in any way diminish the principles of comity or the…”
Texas v. United States, 95 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Tex. 2015). “Section 2 of DOMA, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (“Full Faith and Credit Statute”), was not at issue in Windsor and, to date, it remains in effect.”
Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). “2419 (1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, 1 U.S.C. § 7 ). SMELT v.”
In re the Marriage of Dean LAFLEUR v. Timothy PYFER, 479 P.3d 869 (Colo. 2021). “2d 808 ( 2013 ) , and allowed states to refuse to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C , rendered obsolete by Obergefell , 576 U.”
in Re State of Texas, 466 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. 2015). “28 U.S.C. § 1738C; see also Tex. Fam. Code § 6.”
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014). “28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Windsor protected valid same-gender, state law marriages based on federalism concerns, as well as Fifth Amendment due process and implied equal protection concerns.”
Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (NY 2006). “This is how marriage is defined in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (Pub L 104-199, 110 US Stat 2419; see 1 USC § 7 ), which provides that no state "shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State .”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738C(a) — 1 case
Jonathan Walker v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr., Div. of Corr.; & Dexter Payne, in His Off. Capacity as Dir., 2026 Ark. 95 (Ark. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.