Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Case name	Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Court	United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Date decided	2010-08-04
Citations	704 F. Supp. 2d 921
Judges	Vaughn R. Walker
Prior actions	Complaint filed challenging Proposition 8
Subsequent actions	Appeal to Ninth Circuit; Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a federal constitutional challenge to California Proposition 8, decided in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case involved parties including proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage, state officials, and advocacy organizations, and produced a district court opinion finding the measure unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The litigation proceeded through the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and prompted review consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States, influencing subsequent decisions on standing, equal protection, and civil rights.

Background

The action arose from California voters' adoption of Proposition 8 in the November 2008 election, which amended the Constitution of California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Plaintiffs included same-sex couples and the organization American Civil Liberties Union as part of litigation initiated after the California Supreme Court had recognized marriage rights in In re Marriage Cases. Defendant names referenced officeholders including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown in his role as Attorney General of California. Key amici and intervenors involved groups such as National Organization for Marriage, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Equality California, Pacific Legal Foundation, and Alliance Defense Fund. The dispute implicated federal jurisprudence including the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

District Court Proceedings

The case was assigned to Judge Vaughn R. Walker in the Northern District of California, where extensive factual development occurred during trial. Evidence included testimony from social scientists, historians, and political figures, and documentary exhibits produced by parties and amici such as U.S. Census Bureau reports and materials from Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. Counsel included attorneys from University of California, Hastings College of the Law Clinic, WilmerHale, Munger, Tolles & Olson, and public interest litigators from ACLU Foundation and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. The district court conducted a bench trial, applying scrutiny analysis drawn from precedents like Brown v. Board of Education, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas. Judge Walker issued findings of fact and conclusions of law concluding Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, entering judgment for plaintiffs and ordering that California officials not enforce the measure.

Ninth Circuit Proceedings

The State of California and proponents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which considered jurisdictional and procedural issues including the role of state officials and private proponents as appellees. Parties included litigants associated with Campaign for California Families and legal representation by counsel from Feldman Gale and other firms. The Ninth Circuit addressed questions of standing, mootness, and the appropriate remedy, while engaging with precedent from circuits such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and decisions like Baker v. Nelson and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission insofar as procedural posture and constitutional review principles applied. The appellate process featured en banc considerations in related cases and interlocutory filings to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Supreme Court Implications and Related Decisions

The case’s procedural posture led to petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court's resolution in Hollingsworth v. Perry addressed standing of private proponents to defend state measures in federal court, invoking doctrines from cases such as Shaw v. Reno, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, and Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the district court judgment intact but not issuing a merits ruling. This disposition interacted with contemporaneous and subsequent developments in marriage equality jurisprudence, notably United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, which addressed federal recognition and nationwide marriage rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution respectively.

Legal Analysis and Impact

Scholars and jurists analyzed the district court’s application of equal protection standards, engagement with sexual orientation classifications, and use of social science evidence concerning family formation and child welfare from sources including American Psychological Association studies. The case prompted discussion of levels of scrutiny articulated in cases like Korematsu v. United States and Craig v. Boren in academic commentary and law reviews at institutions such as Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and Columbia Law School. Legal impact extended to litigation strategy employed by advocacy organizations, legislative responses in statehouses including the California State Legislature, and administrative actions by county clerks and circuit courts across California counties such as San Francisco County and Los Angeles County.

Reactions and Legacy

Public reaction spanned political figures including Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and civil society leaders at organizations like GLAAD, PFLAG, and Conservative Legal Defense Fund. Media coverage and commentary appeared in outlets like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, and Fox News. The litigation influenced subsequent ballot initiatives, campaign finance debates in contexts like Citizens United v. FEC, and later civil rights advocacy culminating in nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage. The case remains cited in discussions of standing doctrine, experimental use of social science in constitutional adjudication, and the interplay between state constitutions and federal constitutional protections.

Category:United States same-sex marriage case law Category:2010 in United States case law