Hollingsworth v. Perry

133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution. Under California law, same-sex couples have a right to enter into relationships recognized by the State as “domestic partnerships,” which carry “the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” The California Supreme Court concluded that the California Constitution further guarantees same-sex couples “all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage,” including the right to have that marriage “officially recognized” as such by the State. State voters passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Plaintiffs (Ps), same-sex couples who wish to marry, filed suit in federal court, challenging Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. State officials refused to defend the law, so the District Court allowed (Ds)--the initiative's official proponents--to intervene to defend it. The court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Ds appealed. The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court: whether official proponents of a ballot initiative have authority to assert the State's interest in defending the constitutionality of the initiative when public officials refuse to do so. After the California Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Ds had standing under federal law to defend Proposition 8's constitutionality. On the merits, the court affirmed the District Court's order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.