Pavan v. Smith Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Arkansas refused to list the non-birthing spouse of a same-sex couple on their child’s birth certificate, despite listing non-biological fathers for opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court held this differential treatment unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage established in Obergefell.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that Obergefell v. Hodges requires states to provide same-sex married couples with all benefits of marriage, including parental recognition on birth certificates, on the same terms as opposite-sex couples, even when biology is not the basis for parentage.
Pavan v. Smith Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Two same-sex couples, legally married in other states, each had a child in Arkansas. The children were conceived via anonymous sperm donation, and in each case, one of the female spouses was the birth mother. When the couples completed the birth certificate applications, they listed both spouses as parents. The Arkansas Department of Health, however, issued certificates listing only the birth mother’s name. This action was based on Ark. Code § 20-18-401, which provides that if a married woman gives birth, her “husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child.” This statutory presumption of parentage for the husband applied regardless of his biological connection to the child, including in cases of artificial insemination with a donor. The state refused to extend this marital presumption of parentage to the non-birthing female spouse of a birth mother, thereby treating married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples in identical circumstances.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state law that denies a married same-sex couple the right to have both spouses listed on their child’s birth certificate, while affording that right to a similarly situated opposite-sex couple, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses as interpreted in Obergefell v. Hodges?
Yes. The Court held that Arkansas’s differential treatment of same-sex married couples Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a state law that denies a married same-sex couple the right to have both spouses listed on their child’s birth certificate, while affording that right to a similarly situated opposite-sex couple, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses as interpreted in Obergefell v. Hodges?
Conclusion
*Pavan v. Smith* serves as a direct enforcement of *Obergefell*, confirming that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
Legal Rule
Under *Obergefell v. Hodges*, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), the Constitution requires states Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c
Legal Analysis
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court directly applied the precedent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under Obergefell v. Hodges, states must grant same-sex couples the same