The U.S. Supreme Court case VL v. EL, 2015 revolved around the parental rights of same-sex couples. The dispute began when a lesbian couple from Alabama, who had three children through assisted reproductive technology while living in Georgia, ended their relationship. One woman (V.L.) was the biological mother and her partner (E.L.) adopted the children in Georgia where second-parent adoption was legal for same-sex couples at that time; however, after moving to Alabama which did not recognize such adoptions then, E.L., as the biological mother denied V.L.'s visitation rights arguing that her adoption wasn't valid under Alabama law. The case reached the Supreme Court after an initial ruling by an Alabama court denying V.L.'s parental rights and a subsequent reversal by another court recognizing those rights based on Full Faith and Credit Clause of Constitution requiring states to respect judicial proceedings of other states. In March 2016, without hearing oral arguments or issuing a full opinion but with an unsigned per curiam decision instead - indicating unanimous agreement among justices - ,the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of V.L., upholding her adoptive parent status thus affirming that all states must honor court judgments from other states including adoptions granted to same-sex parents.

In the dissenting opinion for VL v. EL, 2015, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority by intervening in a state court matter. He contended that the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to not recognize an adoption decree from Georgia was based on their interpretation of Georgia law and thus fell under state jurisdiction rather than federal. The majority ruling held that full faith and credit should be given to judicial proceedings of other states; however, Justice Thomas disagreed with this application as he believed it infringed upon states' rights to interpret their own laws independently without interference from federal courts or other states. In his view, this case did not present a constitutional issue but rather one of conflicting interpretations between two state courts which should have been resolved at the state level.