Thompson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Civil Procedure

484 U.S. 174 (1988)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureImplied cause of actionFederal jurisdictionFull faith and creditChild custody judgmentsParental Kidnaping Prevention Act28 U.S.C. § 1738Aimplied private right of action

Facts

After respondent moved with the child from California to Louisiana, she obtained a Louisiana order enforcing the California decree and awarding her sole custody. Two months later, the California court entered an order awarding sole custody to petitioner, creating conflicting state custody decrees. Petitioner then sued in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Louisiana decree was invalid and the California decree valid, plus an injunction against enforcement of the Louisiana decree. He did not first attempt to enforce the California decree in a Louisiana state court.

Issue

Does the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, furnish an implied cause of action in federal court to determine which of two conflicting state custody decisions is valid?

Rule

In deciding whether to infer a private cause of action from a federal statute, the ultimate inquiry is congressional intent. Unless intent to create a private remedy can be inferred from the statute's language, structure, context, or legislative history, no implied federal cause of action exists; under that standard, the PKPA furnishes only a rule of decision for courts and does not create a federal cause of action to resolve conflicting state custody decrees.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a divorce in Oregon, Lena Ortiz obtained a custody order there. Months later, Devin Marks secured a conflicting custody order in Nevada and then filed suit in federal district court in Reno seeking a declaration that the Nevada order controls under a federal child-custody full-faith-and-credit statute and an injunction against enforcement of the Oregon order.

Should the federal district court recognize an implied cause of action under the statute to decide which state custody decree is valid?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that implying a private remedy turns on congressional intent. Where the statute is structured as a full-faith-and-credit command to states and state courts, the better reading is that it furnishes a rule of decision for courts rather than a new federal cause of action for private litigants. The majority rejected an implied federal action to determine which of two conflicting state custody decrees is valid.