Perry v. Schwarzenegger
| Hollingsworth v. Perry | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 26, 2013 Decided June 26, 2013 |
|
| Full case name | Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 12-144 |
| Citations | 570 U.S. ___ (more)
133 S.Ct. 2652
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history |
Judgment for plaintiffs, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal., 2010); Certified question, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th. Cir.); Answered 52 Cal.4th 1116 (2011) Affirmed, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) |
| Holding | |
| After lower courts ruled that California's ban on same-sex marriage was an unconstitutional violation of the right to equal protection under the law, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents did not have standing to intervene as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. III | |
Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. It eventually reached the United States Supreme Court as Hollingsworth v. Perry, who held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.
The salient effect of the ruling was that same-sex marriage in California resumed under the district court trial decision from 2010. The case was docketed with the Supreme Court at 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-144).
In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held in the case In re Marriage Cases that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution. The following month, same-sex couples were able to marry in California. In November 2008, California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage. Following the adoption of Proposition 8, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment under various state constitutional provisions. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held, in Strauss v. Horton, that Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment, but that same-sex marriages contracted before its passage remained valid. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and American Civil Liberties Union had originally obtained the right to same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton."
...
Wikipedia