Suing states across state lines

The Court is equally divided on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled and thus affirms the Nevada courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over California’s state agency. The Constitution does not permit Nevada to apply a rule of Nevada law that awards damages against California that are greater than it could award against Nevada in similar circumstances. This conclusion is consistent with this Court’s precedents. A statute is a “public Act” within the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. While a State is not required “to substitute for its own statute... the statute of another State reflecting a conflicting and opposed policy,” Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408, 412, a State’s decision to decline to apply another State’s statute on this ground must not embody a “policy of hostility to the public Acts” of that other State, id., at 413. 130 Nev. ___, 335 P. 3d 125, vacated and remanded.

The Court said the Constitution’s rule for respecting other states’ laws (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) does not force Nevada to replace its own conflicting law with California’s law. But Nevada cannot award California greater damages than it would allow against its own agencies in similar cases, or apply its law out of hostility to California’s laws.

Majority author

Stephen G. Breyer

The Nevada Supreme Court must revisit its judgment under the damages rule. The question whether to overturn Nevada v. Hall remains unresolved because the justices split evenly.