| 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 no. | 12-144 |
| Citations | 570 U.S. 693 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2652; 186 L. Ed. 2d 768 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for plaintiffs, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Certified question, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th. Cir. 2011); Answered, Perry v. Brown, 52 Cal.4th 1116 (2011); Affirmed, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012); Cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1066 (2012). |
| 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 was a series of United States federal court cases that re-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 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. Other findings from the trial decision, including Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact, remain controlling precedent for future relevant cases. The case was docketed with the Supreme Court at 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (Docket No. 12-144).[2]