E.L. v. V.L. Supremes reverse Alabama

[ronlglock]

I believe the USSC's reasoning could be used to help CCW reciprocity.

Mods, please move if this is the wrong forum.


E.L. and V.L. are two women who had three children. The non-biological mother, V.L., adopted the children in Georgia. When the parents later broke up, the biological mother, E.L., kept V.L. from seeing the children. V.L. sought visitation in Alabama, where the family lives. E.L. opposed her request, arguing that the Georgia adoption was invalid in Alabama. The AL Supremes agreed, but the US Supremes, without hearing arguments, reversed and remanded the decision.

The adoption happened while they were GA residents, and GA granted them joint custody when they separated. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in September that Georgia mistakenly granted V.L. joint custody.

E.L.'s lawyers argued that "the Georgia court had no authority under Georgia law to award such an adoption, which is therefore void and not entitled to full faith and credit."

The US Supremes stated that, "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits."

So it seems to me that if State A believes that a person should have a CCW, that using this reasoning state B must be forced to recognize it - just like every state accepts every other states' DLs.

[homelessdude]

Sounds good to me, what is your next step?

[morfeeis]

That is a huge legal leap

[wireless]

"Public safety", "traditional marriage", "think of the children".

All the same absurd argument. Both parties pull the same baseless bull****.

Anyways, I don't see it. It's a nice thought, but don't count on it.

[Peaceful John]

The US Supremes stated that, "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits."

Good catch! BTW, was that in dicta or the judgement?

[press1280]

They'll say a CCW isn't a "judgement"

[Fate]

Or states like CA will try to say free states need to comply with their nanny laws.

[fiddletown]

...The US Supremes stated that, "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits."

So it seems to me that if State A believes that a person should have a CCW, that using this reasoning state B must be forced to recognize it - just like every state accepts every other states' DLs.

It might seem that to you because (1) you don't really know why a State recognizes the driver's licenses of other States; and (2) you don't understand the legal meaning and application of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (the "Full Faith and Credit Clause").

1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
   
   
2. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution reads:

   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.

   
   
3. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.
   
   
   1. For example, see this article:

      ...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....

      
      
   2. Or this article:

      ...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...

      
      
   3. As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:

      ...The Supreme Court has invoked the clause to police state-court proceedings in three contexts: (1) determining when a state must take jurisdiction over claims that arise in other states; (2) limiting the application of local state law over another state's law in multistate disputes; and (3) recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered in sister-state courts....

      
      
   4. And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

      ...Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B....

   
   
   
4. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:
   
   
   1. Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:
      
      
      1. It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.
         
         
      2. What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.
         
         
      3. But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:
         
         
         • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.
           
           
         • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.
      
      
      
   2. Similarly:
      
      
      1. If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.
         
         
      2. That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.
         
         
      3. But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.
      
      
      
   3. For another example:
      
      
      1. You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgment in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.
         
         
      2. Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.
         
         
      3. You now take that judgment to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.
         
         
      4. In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgment as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgment).
         
         
      5. But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgment, the way you can collect that judgment in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgment, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.
   
   
   
5. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel).

[fiddletown]

They'll say a CCW isn't a "judgement"

And it's not, as the word "judgment" is used in the SCOTUS case referred to in the OP. The word "judgment" thus used means:

A decision by a court or other tribunal that resolves a controversy and determines the rights and obligations of the parties.

A judgment is the final part of a court case. A valid judgment resolves all the contested issues and terminates the lawsuit, since it is regarded as the court's official pronouncement of the law on the action that was pending before it. It states who wins the case and what remedies the winner is awarded....

[rootuser]

However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel).

And herein lays the hammer IMHO. This is an excellent example. Although there could be a difference drawn between a "practitioner" vs a CCW holder being more like a voter, you still have to register to vote and meet the state requirements for voting. As we have seen some states making it more and more difficult to vote (in an attempt to disenfranchise) other states want to make it harder and harder to get a carry permit (yet another attempt to disenfranchise).

[wolfwood]

until I can practice law in all 50 states despite only passed the bar exam in two I think this is not going to work