Thompson v. Thompson
Headline: Court rejects private federal lawsuits under the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, blocking parents from asking federal courts to resolve conflicting state custody orders and leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures.
Holding: The PKPA does not allow a private federal lawsuit to decide which of two conflicting state custody orders is valid; such disputes must be resolved by state courts unless Congress provides otherwise.
- Prevents parents from suing in federal court to resolve conflicting state custody orders.
- Leaves enforcement and fights over custody primarily to state courts and state law.
- Congress can still change the rule; Supreme Court review remains for rare deadlocks.
Summary
Background
A mother (Susan Clay, then Susan Thompson) and father (David Thompson) fought over custody of their child, Matthew. California courts first awarded custody arrangements, and when the mother moved to Louisiana the Louisiana court later granted her sole custody. Two months after that, the California court awarded custody to the father. The father sued in federal court in California asking the court to declare the Louisiana order invalid and the California order valid; he had not tried to enforce the California order in Louisiana state court. The federal district court dismissed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA) does not give a person a federal right to bring such a suit.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether the PKPA lets a private person sue in federal court to decide which of two state custody orders is valid. It explained that the PKPA is added to the national rule that requires states to recognize other states’ court decisions (the “full faith and credit” rule). Congress wrote the PKPA to make state courts enforce custody orders and to avoid interstate fights and parental kidnapping. The legislative record shows Congress rejected proposals to create a federal forum for enforcing custody orders. Because the PKPA speaks to state courts and follows the full faith and credit approach, the Court held it was meant as a rule for courts to apply, not as a new federal lawsuit right. The father’s federal claim therefore fails, and the Ninth Circuit’s judgment is affirmed.
Real world impact
Parents cannot use the PKPA as a basis to bring a new federal lawsuit asking a federal judge to pick between two state custody rulings. Custody disputes like this will be handled through state courts, and Congress could change the rule if it chooses. The Supreme Court remains available for rare, truly intractable deadlocks.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice O’Connor joined most of the opinion. Justice Scalia agreed with the result but warned the Court’s discussion about when to infer private rights departs from recent precedents and argued courts should be more restrictive about implying new federal causes of action.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?