Case: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

3:09-cv-02292 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: May 22, 2009

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 22, 2009, two same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in California filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that California, by amending its constitution in 2008 to once a…

For a short while, same-sex marriage had been legal in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution, In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008), and for several months after that same-sex couples had been able to marry. In November 2008, however, California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that reinstated the opposite-sex limitation on marriage. Several lawsuits were filed to challenge the validity of the amendment under various state constitutional provisions, but on May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held that while same-sex marriage contracted before its passage remained valid, Proposition 8 had been lawfully enacted. Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009).

This case was filed three days prior to the Strauss decision. On July 2, 2009, the City and County of San Francisco moved to intervene, and on August 19, the District Court (Judge Vaughn R. Walker) allowed their intervention, albeit in a limited capacity. Because the governor and attorney general of California refused to defend Proposition 8, its official proponents moved to intervene, and their motion was also granted.

On August 4, 2010, the Court (Judge Walker) held in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 as a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). It found that California had no rational basis for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples and granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Proposition 8.

On the day the District Court's ruling came down, the defendant-interveners appealed it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on August 12 they moved for a stay of the District Court's injunction. The Court of Appeals granted their motion on August 16.

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court (Judge Stephen Reinhardt) found that it did not need to consider the rationale of the District Court, deciding instead on a narrower ground specific to the Californian context. Drawing heavily on the Supreme Court's language and reasoning in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the Court held that because California had already offered same-sex couples the right to marry, and because it still offered them a status identical in all but name, Proposition 8 did nothing more than inflict dignitary harm on same-sex couples and thus had no rational basis.

On February 21, 2012, the defendant-interveners requested en banc review of the panel's decision by the entire Ninth Circuit, but their request was denied on June 5, leaving them ninety days to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. Injunctive relief has been stayed pending appeal.

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to review the case. The court ordered briefing on two questions on review: (1) whether the Equal Protection Clause makes unconstitutional California's definition of marriage as available only to different sex couples, and (2) whether the backers of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal the 9th Circuit decision striking it down.

On June 26, 2013, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan), the Supreme Court found that nobody with standing to appeal had, in fact, appealed the district court ruling, and accordingly vacated that decision. This left in place the district court's decision striking Prop 8 down -- so same-sex marriage is legal is California.

	Document
0:12-00144	Supreme Court docket Hollingsworth v. Perry Supreme Court of the United States	Feb. 28, 2013	Feb. 28, 2013 Docket
3:09-cv-02292	Docket [PACER]	Sept. 3, 2013	Sept. 3, 2013 Docket
1-1 3:09-cv-02292	Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief	May 22, 2009	May 22, 2009 Complaint
	Make Change, Not Lawsuits [Perry v. Schwarzenegger] No Court	May 27, 2009	May 27, 2009 Press Release
161 3:09-cv-02292	[City and County of San Francisco's] Complaint in Intervention for Declaratory, Injunctive or Other Relief	Aug. 20, 2009	Aug. 20, 2009 Complaint
708 3:09-cv-02292	[District Court] Order [Enjoining Enforcement of Proposition 8]	Aug. 4, 2010	Aug. 4, 2010 Order/Opinion 704 F.Supp.2d 921
4 10-16696	Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants Dennis Hollingworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and Protectmarriage.com’s Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 12, 2010	Aug. 12, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
14 10-16696	Order U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 16, 2010	Aug. 16, 2010 Order/Opinion 2010 WL 3212786
3 10-16751	Order U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 17, 2010	Aug. 17, 2010 Order/Opinion
10-16696	[Ninth Circuit] Opinion [Affirming the District Court's Judgment] Perry v. Brown U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Feb. 7, 2012	Feb. 7, 2012 Order/Opinion 671 F.3d 1052

Case: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

3:09-cv-02292 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details