V.L. v. E.L.

V.L. v. E.L.
V.L. v. E.L.
	Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 7, 2016
Full case name	V.L. v. E.L., et al.
Docket no.	15-648
Citations	577 U.S. 404 ( more ) 136 S. Ct. 1017; 194 L. Ed. 2d 92; 2016 U.S. LEXIS 1653
Case history
Prior	Judgment for petitioner, No. CS-13-719 (April 15, 2014 Ala. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Cty.); rev'd, No. 2130683 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Oct. 24, 2014); on rehearing, aff'd in part, sub nom. Ex parte E.L., No. 2130683, 2015 WL 836916 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Feb. 27, 2015); rev., No. 1140595, 2015 WL 5511249 (Ala. September 18, 2015)
Procedural	Visitation order issued in Jefferson County Family Court (Apr 2014); reversed by Alabama Court of Civil Appeals (Oct 2014); rehearing granted, Family Court ruling affirmed by Alabama Court of Civil Appeals (Feb 2015); reversed and remanded by Supreme Court of Alabama (Sep 2015). Motion by petitioner to stay the ruling granted by U.S. Supreme Court (Dec 2015). Order reversed by the United States Supreme Court, adoption rights restored to V.L. (March 2016).
Holding
	Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State of Alabama must recognize the adoption decree granted by a Georgia state court in 2007, regardless of how that court came to its conclusion granting the decree. Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded.
Court membership
	Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas ; Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer ; Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor ; Elena Kagan
Case opinion
	Per curiam
Laws applied
	U.S. Const., Art. IV, §1; Ga. Code Ann. §19–8–5(a)

Last updated May 30, 2024

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404 (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.^[1] In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L.^[2] On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

Background

The plaintiff, identified only by initials V.L., and the defendant identified by E.L., entered into a committed relationship in 1995. In 2002, E.L. gave birth to a child via artificial insemination. In 2004, E.L. gave birth to twins via the same method. V.L. acted as a second parent to all three children and the family lived as such. In 2007, the couple and their three children went to Georgia and asked the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia to issue an adoption decree recognizing V.L. as a legal parent of the children. The court approved the adoption and the family moved back to Alabama.

In 2011, the couple split apart. V.L. was allowed to see her children for a short time afterwards with the consent of E.L. However, visitation eventually became an issue and on October 31, 2013, V.L. filed a complaint in the Jefferson County Family Court to recognize the Georgia adoption decree. On April 3, 2014, the judge awarded V.L. visitation, recognizing the Georgia adoption decree.^[3]

Appeals

E.L. appealed the visitation order to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. In October 2014, the Court initially ruled that the Jefferson County judge was incorrect in granting adoption rights.^[4] Upon a request for rehearing, however, on February 27, 2015, the Court of Appeals upheld the original ruling recognizing the adoption decree, but ruled the trial court erred in not holding a hearing to address the issue. E.L. filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Alabama. On April 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the writ of certiorari.

On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama in a per curiam opinion declared the adoption decree void in the State of Alabama. The Court ruled that the court that had granted the adoption decree misapplied Georgia state law, and did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the adoption. Five justices formed the majority opinion. Justice Murdock concurred without opinion. In a separate concurrence, Justice Parker stated "the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging that children be adopted into the optimal family structure, i.e., one with both a father and a mother." Only Justice Shaw dissented, stating that the United States Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause prohibited the Alabama Supreme Court from ruling on the merits of the case. The justice stated that Alabama case law did not allow the court to inquire into how another state court reached a judgment, only that Alabama must respect it.^[5]

United States Supreme Court

V.L. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 16, 2015 and requested that the court stay the ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama nullifying her parental rights. The children's state-appointed guardian ad litem also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, as he felt that it was not in the children's best interest to have V.L. removed from their lives. V.L.'s argument was that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize court judgments from other states, including adoption decrees. She also noted that no other state had before refused to recognize an adoption decree from another state.^[6]

On December 14, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the ruling, pending their disposition of the case. The stay allowed V.L. to continue to visit her children while the court considered her petition to review the case.^[7]

On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam summary disposition which reversed the Supreme Court of Alabama, and effectively reinstated V.L.'s rights granted by the Georgia Superior Court. The court's reasoning was based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Superior Court in Georgia did have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the adoption and that E.L. had expressly consented to the adoption. Furthermore, the court ruled that since no Georgia law was contrary to the Georgia adoption judgment, the Supreme Court of Alabama was incorrect in refusing to recognize the judgment. The court reversed the Supreme Court of Alabama, and remanded the case for further proceedings.^[1]

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

The 2002 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 7, 2002, and concluded October 5, 2003. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down twelve per curiam opinions during its 2002 term, which began October 7, 2002 and concluded October 5, 2003.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the protection from double jeopardy by the federal government. While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented the Federal Government from bringing a defendant to trial twice for the same charge. In this case, the court ruled that despite the error of the District Judge, the 5th Amendment protected the defendants from facing a second trial for the same charge.

One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazine ONE violated obscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

Until 2017, laws related to LGBTQ+ couples adopting children varied by state. Some states granted full adoption rights to same-sex couples, while others banned same-sex adoption or only allowed one partner in a same-sex relationship to adopt the biological child of the other.

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

The 2015 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 5, 2015, and concluded October 2, 2016. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

References

1 2 V.L. v. E.L.,No. 15–648 , 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1017 (2016).
↑ "Case: E.L. v. V.L." National Center for Lesbian Rights. February 27, 2015. Archived from the original on February 22, 2019. Retrieved December 16, 2015.
↑ Faulk, Kent (September 18, 2015). "Alabama Supreme Court Says State Doesn't Have to Recognize Lesbian Adoption from Georgia". AL.com. Retrieved December 16, 2015.
↑ E.L. v. V.L., 2130683 (Court of Civil Appeals of AlabamaOctober 24, 2014).
↑ Ex parte E.L. (In re: E.L. v V.L.), 1140595 (Supreme Court of Alabama2015).
↑ Denniston, Lyle (November 17, 2015). "Opening a New Phase of Family Law for Gays?". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 16, 2015.
↑ S.M. (December 15, 2015). "Gay Adoption: Will the Supreme Court patch a hole in its same-sex marriage ruling?". The Economist. Retrieved December 16, 2015.

External links

Text of V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___(2016) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[SupremeCourt-1] 1 2 V.L. v. E.L.,No. 15–648 , 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1017 (2016).

[National_Center_for_Lesbian_Rights-2] "Case: E.L. v. V.L." National Center for Lesbian Rights. February 27, 2015. Archived from the original on February 22, 2019. Retrieved December 16, 2015.

[AL-3] Faulk, Kent (September 18, 2015). "Alabama Supreme Court Says State Doesn't Have to Recognize Lesbian Adoption from Georgia". AL.com. Retrieved December 16, 2015.

[4] E.L. v. V.L., 2130683 (Court of Civil Appeals of AlabamaOctober 24, 2014).

[5] Ex parte E.L. (In re: E.L. v V.L.), 1140595 (Supreme Court of Alabama2015).

[SCOTUSblog-6] Denniston, Lyle (November 17, 2015). "Opening a New Phase of Family Law for Gays?". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 16, 2015.

[TheEconomist-7] S.M. (December 15, 2015). "Gay Adoption: Will the Supreme Court patch a hole in its same-sex marriage ruling?". The Economist. Retrieved December 16, 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]