Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1942)
Williams v. North Carolina (I) is a foundational Full Faith and Credit Clause decision at the intersection of conflict of laws and family law.
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require a state to recognize a sister state's ex parte divorce decree obtained by a spouse domiciled in the rendering state, thereby precluding criminal conviction for bigamous cohabitation when the only ground for nonrecognition is the ex parte nature of the proceeding?
A divorce decree entered by a court of a state that had jurisdiction based on the bona fide domicile of at least one spouse is entitled to full faith and credit in every other state, even if the decree was rendered in an ex parte proceeding with only constructive service on the absent spouse. Haddock v. Haddock is overruled to the extent it permitted nonrecognition of such decrees solely because the proceeding was ex parte. The obligation of recognition presupposes that the rendering court had jurisdiction, which turns on the existence of a genuine domicile in that state.
Yes. Where the rendering court's jurisdiction rested on the petitioner's bona fide domicile, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires other states to recognize the divorce decree notwithstanding its ex parte character. Because Nevada's jurisdiction was assumed on the record in this case, North Carolina was constitutionally obligated to give the decrees full faith and credit; the bigamous cohabitation convictions could not stand on the ground relied upon by the North Carolina courts.
Williams I is pivotal for conflict of laws and family law: it constitutionalized the portability of divorce by holding that ex parte divorces based on bona fide domicile travel with the parties. It ended the Haddock regime and curtailed states' ability to criminalize conduct (such as remarriage) that another state's valid judgment authorized. For students, the case illustrates how the Full Faith and Credit Clause interacts with jurisdictional predicates—especially the centrality of domicile in status adjudications—and sets up the crucial follow-on in Williams II permitting collateral inquiry into domicile. Together, the Williams cases remain core authority on interstate recognition of marital status and the limits of evasion and policy-based nonrecognition.