Editing Full Faith and Credit Clause (section)

{{Use mdy dates|date = April 2019}}
{{Short description|Clause of the United States constitution}}
{{Use American English|date = April 2019}}
{{about|a clause in the U.S. Constitution|a similar clause|Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia|debt guarantees|general obligation bond}}

[[Article Four of the United States Constitution|Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution]], the '''Full Faith and Credit Clause''', addresses the duty that [[U.S. state|states]] within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". According to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]], there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.<ref name="Franchise" /> Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110927181122/https://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-by-robert-h-jackson/full-faith-and-credit/ See Robert Jackson, Full Faith and Credit: The Lawyer's Clause of the Constitution (1945). Originally 45 Colum. L. Rev. 1. available at Robert H. Jackson Center] (archived from [https://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-by-robert-h-jackson/full-faith-and-credit/ the original] on September 27, 2011)</ref>  At present, it is widely agreed that this clause of the Constitution has a minimal impact on a court's [[choice of law]] decision provided that no state's sovereignty is infringed,<ref>See ''Allstate v. Hague'' {{ussc|449|302|1981}} (Plurality and deciding separate concurrence agreeing that full faith and credit and due process require only minimal scrutiny for state court choice of law decision as long as infringement upon state sovereignty is avoided); Robert A. Sedler, Constitutional Limitations on Choice of Law: The Perspective of Constitutional Generalism, 10 Hofstra L. Rev. 59 (1981); Willis L.M. Reese, The Hague Case: An Opportunity Lost, 10 Hofstra L. Rev. 195 (1981); Linda J. Silberman, Can the State of Minnesota Bind the Nation? Federal Choice of Law Constraints After Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 10 Hofstra L. Rev. 103 (1983).</ref> although this clause of the Constitution was once interpreted to have greater impact.<ref>''Alaska Packers v. Industrial Accident Commission'', {{ussc|294|532|1935}} (holding that full faith and credit may require application of law of the state with the greatest interest in the case); See Reese, Legislative Jurisdiction, 78 Colum. L. Rev. 1587 (1978).</ref>