Jump to content

Hollingsworth v. Perry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will231 (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 10 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case name KRISTEN M. PERRY et al., Plaintiffs,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Governor of California, etc., Defendants;

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH
et al., Intervenor-Defendants.
Court membership
Judge sittingVaughn R. Walker
Keywords
Equal Protection, Same-sex marriage, Sexual Orientation

Perry v Schwarzenegger is a U.S. District Court case challenging the validity of California Proposition 8.

On the day of Strauss v. Horton's decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8. Their attorneys are former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and David Boies, who worked on opposite sides in the Bush v. Gore case. Olson said that he planned for this case to appear before the Supreme Court within the next two years.[1] Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who originally won same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton, opposed the move because they felt that a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good at the present time.[2] Olson rebuffed this claim, saying that "David and I have studied constitutional law longer than we’d rather admit, and I think we know what we’re doing ... this case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the U.S. Constitution."[3] The three organizations have since attempted to intervene in the lawsuit.[4] San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case, saying that their work in In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination", with City Attorney Dennis Herrera saying that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put anti-gay discrimination on trial based on the facts".[5]The AFER also filed a preliminary injunction that would have immediately restored same-sex marriage in California until the federal suit is decided.[6] Judge Vaughn R. Walker tentatively denied the injunction, and said he would instead proceed with a speedy trial.[7]

California Attorney General Jerry Brown backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.[8] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path,[9] saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court,[10] the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants.[11] The case was heard on July 2, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, Judge Vaughn R. Walker presiding.[12] Judge Walker denied the preliminary injunction which would have temporarily suspended Proposition 8, although he set a hearing for August because "the case raises numerous issues that may need to be considered at a trial, including the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians and the intent and effects of the state constitutional amendment".[13]

In August, Judge Walker heard the requests of three gay-rights groups and one conservative group to intervene as plaintiffs and defendants, respectively. Although he denied intervenor status to these groups, Judge Walker granted the City of San Francisco to intervene as plaintiffs, but only to assess the financial impact that withholding the right to wed from same-sex couples has on local governments. He ordered the Attorney General's office to aid San Francisco in analyzing Proposition 8's impact. He cited that necessary speed and swiftness "on an issue of this magnitude and importance" were required and that the intervention of additional groups would only complicate and stall the case.[9] In addition, Judge Walker ordered a trial set for January 2010, which is set to address questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder.[14]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Willie (2009-05-31). "Bush-Gore legal pair push gay marriage suit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Bush v. Gore Foes Join to Fight Gay Marriage Ban". New York Times. 2009-05-27. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  3. ^ Harmon, Andrew (2009-05-27). "Legal Experts Concerned by Fed Prop. 8 Case". The Advocate. Retrieved 2009-06-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ "Gay Rights Groups Seek to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban". The Recorder. 2009-07-22. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  5. ^ "San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8". San Francisco City Attorney's Office. 2009-07-23. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
  6. ^ Rauber, Chris (May 27, 2009). "Bush, Gore attorneys from 2000 team up to take on Prop. 8". Los Angeles Business. Retrieved May 31, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Leff, Lisa (2009-07-01). "Judge likely won't grant Prop. 8 injunction". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-30.
  8. ^ Dolan, Mora and Williams, Carol J. (2009-06-13). "Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-06-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ a b Leff, Lisa (2009-08-19). "Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
  10. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-06-17). "Governor backs federal review of Prop. 8". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  11. ^ "SF: CITY SEEKS TO JOIN FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN". CBS. 2009-07-24. Retrieved 2009-07-24.
  12. ^ Laird, Cynthia (2009-06-18). "Brown still fighting Prop 8". Bay Area Reporter. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
  13. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-06-01). "Federal judge taking long look at Prop. 8". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-08-19). "Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-08-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hollingsworth_v._Perry&oldid=313059552"