Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Perry v. Schwarzenegger )

Series of U.S. federal court cases that reinstated same-sex marriage in California

2013 United States Supreme Court case

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that reinstated 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 California 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. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court , which 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.[1] The effect of the ruling was that same-sex marriage in California resumed under the district court trial decision from 2010.[2]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollingsworth_v._Perry&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

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 .[3] The following month, same-sex couples became able to marry in California.[4] In November 2008, California's voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that sought to restore a prior opposite-sex-couple limitation on marriage;[5] but following its adoption, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment, under various state constitutional provisions.[6] On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held, in _Strauss v. Horton _ that (while Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment), all same-sex marriages that had been contracted before the proposition's passage remained valid.[7]

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. Three days before the Strauss decision occurred, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California , to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples.[8] [9] [10] The couples' legal team was led by David Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson (who, incidentally, had previously represented opposite parties in _Bush v. Gore _, with Boies representing Al Gore and Olson representing George W. Bush , the case that, effectively, decided the 2000 U.S. presidential election ).[11] In the 2010 Time 100 , they were listed, for "their nonpartisan and strong legal approach to challenging Proposition 8."[12]

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the filing because they felt a federal challenge at this time might do more harm than good.[9] Olson and AFER rebuffed this argument and defended the timing of the lawsuit.[13] Following a pre-trial hearing on July 2, 2009, the three legal groups moved to intervene in the lawsuit, as did the City of San Francisco in a separate filing.[14] The plaintiffs opposed allowing the groups or the city to intervene.[15] On August 19, Judge Walker denied the legal groups' motions to intervene, but granted the City's, albeit in a limited capacity.[16] Despite the other groups' failed attempt to intervene in the lawsuit, they offered support to the legal team litigating the case, with James Esseks of the ACLU saying: "We are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible".[8]

Parties

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollingsworth_v._Perry&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Parties")
]

Plaintiffs

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollingsworth_v._Perry&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Plaintiffs")
]

It was still emotional to be denied [a marriage license]. But in all fairness [to the clerk], she handled it really well. [Her words] reiterated that we were denied equal rights . It made us feel that we made the right decision to be a part of this case.[15]

— Jeffrey Zarrillo, co-plaintiff

In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple.[17] For the same reason, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license.[10] The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger , Attorney General Jerry Brown , and two officials in the Department of Public Health .[10] [18]

Several groups sought to intervene as plaintiffs, including the groups who had prosecuted the actions entitled _In re Marriage Cases _ and _Strauss v. Horton _.[19] San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case. The City cited its work in the earlier cases that had provided "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".[20] City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put [anti-gay discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

…