Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Smith v. Pavan
Citation: 2017 Ark. 284Docket: CV-15-988
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; October 19, 2017; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of Arkansas, in case No. CV-15-988, is addressing an appeal by Nathaniel Smith, MD, MPH, Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, following a remand from the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had previously reversed Arkansas’s birth-certificate law, deeming it unconstitutional for treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples, as established in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Arkansas court rejected the appellant's interpretation of the Supreme Court's opinion and emphasized that a gender-neutral reading of the assisted-reproduction statute would not suffice to remedy the constitutional issues identified. It ruled that the circuit court must provide declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure same-sex spouses have the same rights as opposite-sex spouses regarding children’s birth certificates. The court stated that simply affirming the previous order, which altered statutory provisions, would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The court reversed the circuit court's order and remanded for entry of a final judgment consistent with the Supreme Court's mandate, specifically addressing Arkansas Code Annotated sections 20-18-401 and 20-18-406. Justice Womack concurred but insisted that the circuit court conduct a hearing to assess how the law discriminates against same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex couples and to establish the basis for treating those couples as similarly situated. An order is required to assess the constitutionality of statutes in a manner that respects both the presumption of constitutionality and the Equal Protection Clause, which mandates the equal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The current status of the case has evolved significantly since it was last addressed in the circuit court, including changes in the Department of Health's policy on birth certificates for assisted reproduction. The circuit court's order lacks a thorough analysis of how the classification in question meets the necessary legal scrutiny. Therefore, it is essential for the circuit court to hold a hearing and make specific factual findings. Additionally, while analyzing the constitutionality of the statutes is necessary, it is not within the court's purview to create policy remedies; this responsibility lies with the legislature. The dissenting opinion argues against remanding the case to the circuit court, favoring instead the reversal and dismissal of the circuit court's order, which improperly modified the statute. Based on the State's acknowledgment of the unconstitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 9-10-201, the dissent calls for these statutes to be declared unconstitutional and void. The dissent emphasizes that legislative authority should determine how to address the constitutional issues, asserting that the judiciary should not engage in rewriting statutes.