May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1953)
May v. Anderson is a cornerstone Supreme Court case at the intersection of conflict of laws, family law, and constitutional limits on state court authority.
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require a state to enforce a sister state's child custody decree against a nonresident parent when the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction over that parent?
A state is not constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to a sister state's judgment adjudicating a parent's custodial rights if the rendering court did not have personal jurisdiction over that parent. While a state with proper authority may dissolve a marriage ex parte based on domicile, it cannot, without personal jurisdiction (or equivalent due process protections) over a nonappearing parent, enter a custody judgment that binds that parent's personal rights in other states.
No. The Ohio courts were not required to give full faith and credit to the Wisconsin custody decree because the Wisconsin court lacked personal jurisdiction over the mother when it adjudicated her custodial rights. The judgment therefore did not conclusively determine her custody rights in Ohio.
May v. Anderson cements the divisible divorce doctrine in the custody context and articulates a constitutional limit on the interstate reach of custody decrees: personal jurisdiction over the parent whose rights are adjudicated is required for full faith and credit. The case is a staple in conflict of laws and family law because it teaches how jurisdictional defects in the rendering court constrain enforcement elsewhere. The decision also set the stage for statutory reforms. Later frameworks—the UCCJEA and the PKPA—aim to reduce interstate competition and child snatching by prioritizing the child's home state and requiring notice and opportunity to be heard. While these statutes modify the practical landscape and can authorize custody jurisdiction without traditional in-person jurisdiction over a parent, May remains an important constitutional anchor: a judgment issued without adequate jurisdictional basis and due process protections is not entitled to binding effect across state lines.