Article IV: How the states treat each other

Article IV is the rulebook for a union of states. It makes each state respect the others' court judgments, stops states from treating visitors from other states as second-class, requires them to hand over fugitives, and promises every state a republican government. It also contains the fugitive slave clause, which the Thirteenth Amendment ended.

Section 1: Full faith and credit

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

What it says. Each state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State," and Congress can set how they're proved and what effect they have.

How courts read it. The rule is strongest for court judgments. "As to judgments, the full faith and credit obligation is exacting. A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land" (Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)) Verified2. A state doesn't have to apply another state's laws in its own courts the same way; the clause is weaker there.

In practice. A money judgment, divorce or custody order from Oregon is enforceable in Colusa County Superior Court after the proper filing.

Section 2: Citizens, fugitives and the fugitive slave clause

[Clause 1] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[Clause 2] A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[Clause 3] No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

Changed. Clause 3: Superseded. The Archives notes that "A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment." This is the fugitive slave clause. Verified1,3

Clause 1, Privileges and Immunities. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." A state can't treat an out-of-stater worse on fundamental matters without a substantial reason. New Hampshire's rule limiting bar admission to residents violated it: "Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2" (Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)) Verified4. The clause protects citizens (not corporations) and covers things like earning a living, owning property and access to courts. It doesn't cover everything: states can charge out-of-staters more for hunting licenses or public university tuition.

Clause 2, extradition. A person charged with a crime who flees to another state must be returned on demand of the governor of the state they fled. For over a century, the Court said federal courts couldn't force a governor to comply. In 1987 it overruled that: "Dennison's holding that the federal courts have no authority under the Constitution" to compel a governor was abandoned, and the duty is enforceable (Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987)) Verified5.

Clause 3, the fugitive slave clause (superseded). It required escaped enslaved people to be returned. It's dead text since the Thirteenth Amendment Verified3. It's still printed because the Archives transcription prints the Constitution as written, with notes on what changed.

Section 3: New states and federal property

[Clause 1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Clause 2] The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

Clause 1, new states. Congress admits new states. No state can be split or merged without the consent of the states involved and Congress. California was admitted as a new state under this clause.

Clause 2, the Property Clause. Congress can "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." The Court reads it broadly: "the power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," and it includes protecting wildlife on federal land (Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)) Verified6.

Near Williams. Large parts of the Mendocino National Forest and other federal land lie west of Williams. On that land, federal rules made under this clause control, and federal law preempts conflicting state or county rules.

Section 4: The Guarantee Clause

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

What it says. The United States guarantees every state "a Republican Form of Government" and protects each against invasion and, on request of the legislature or governor, "domestic Violence."

How courts read it. Courts treat guarantee-clause claims as political questions for Congress. In 1849 the Court refused to decide which of two rival governments was the lawful government of Rhode Island (Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)) Verified7. In 1912 a company argued Oregon's new initiative and referendum made its government un-republican. The Court said the question had "long since been determined by this court ... to be political in character, and therefore not cognizable by the judicial power, but solely committed by the Constitution to the judgment of Congress" (Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912)) Verified8.

Why that matters here. California adopted the initiative and referendum in 1911 (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763) Verified9. Pacific States is a key reason no federal court will strike down direct democracy as such. See California Article II.

How it reaches Williams

Article IV binds states directly, and so cities. A Williams rule that favored Williams or California residents over out-of-state citizens in earning a living would raise a Privileges and Immunities question Verified4. Most of the rest of Article IV works between state governments.

In Williams

• Residency preferences. If the city ever limited a business license or contract to local residents, Piper is the case to read first Verified4. Preferences for local businesses are usually tested under the dormant Commerce Clause instead (Article I, Section 8).
• Out-of-state judgments. A judgment against someone from another state can be enforced here, and vice versa Verified2.

Common misconceptions

• "Full faith and credit means every state must follow every other state's laws." It's strongest for judgments, weaker for laws Verified2.
• "A court can rule that the initiative process is unconstitutional because it isn't republican." The Court treats that as a political question Verified8.
• "A governor can refuse to extradite." Not since Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987) Verified5.

Check yourself

Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.