Andrews v. Andrews
Headline: Massachusetts law barring residents who travel to other States to obtain divorces was upheld, allowing the State to refuse recognition of a South Dakota divorce and limiting evasion of home-state divorce rules.
Holding: The Court held Massachusetts could lawfully refuse to recognize a South Dakota divorce obtained by a Massachusetts resident who lacked a bona fide domicile there, because that court lacked jurisdiction and the Constitution’s recognition clause did not compel enforcement.
- Allows states to refuse recognition of divorces obtained without a bona fide out-of-state domicile.
- Means residents cannot easily evade home-state divorce rules by temporary trips.
- Preserves state authority to regulate marriage and its dissolution.
Summary
Background
A Massachusetts resident went to South Dakota and obtained a divorce there. Massachusetts courts refused to give that South Dakota decree effect under a state statute that disallows recognition when a resident keeps their Massachusetts domicile and goes elsewhere to secure a divorce for a cause arising in Massachusetts. The question came to the Court after arguments that federal constitutional rights were asserted and that the state court’s refusal denied those rights.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether Massachusetts’ statute conflicted with the Constitution’s rule that states must respect other states’ public acts and judicial proceedings. The opinion explains that marriage and divorce are matters the States traditionally regulate. A valid out-of-state divorce that must be respected requires the other State’s court to have jurisdiction, which in divorce cases depends on a bona fide domicile. If a person simply sojourns in another State and obtains a decree without true domicile, that court lacked jurisdiction. The Court relied on earlier decisions holding courts may look behind a judgment to see if jurisdiction was present. Applying those principles, the Court concluded the Massachusetts court did not violate the Constitution by refusing to enforce the South Dakota decree.
Real world impact
The decision lets States block residents from evading their home-state marriage and divorce laws by taking a short trip to get a decree elsewhere. It preserves state authority to require genuine domicile before an out-of-state divorce will be recognized and prevents easy extra‑territorial effect of such decrees.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices—Brewer, Shiras, and Peckham—recorded dissents. The opinion does not state their reasons in the supplied text.
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?