Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a landmark United States federal court case that challenged the constitutionality of California Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California. The case was filed by Kristin Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeff Zarrillo, a lesbian couple and a gay couple, respectively, who were denied marriage licenses due to the passage of Proposition 8. The case was heard by Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, with the support of American Civil Liberties Union and National Center for Lesbian Rights. The plaintiffs were represented by David Boies and Theodore Olson, prominent attorneys who had previously argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case.

Background

The case originated from the passage of Proposition 8 in California on November 4, 2008, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The proposition was supported by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had vetoed two same-sex marriage bills passed by the California State Legislature. The plaintiffs, Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, were denied marriage licenses due to the passage of Proposition 8 and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, and other California officials, including Mark B. Horton and Linette Scott, with the support of Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal. The case was also supported by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and other prominent Democratic leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Procedural History

The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 22, 2009, with Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presiding over the case. The defendants, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, were represented by Ken Starr, a former United States Solicitor General and Independent Counsel during the Clinton administration. The plaintiffs were represented by David Boies and Theodore Olson, who had previously argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case, with the support of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Anti-Defamation League. The case was also supported by American Jewish Committee and Unitarian Universalist Association.

Trial

The trial began on January 11, 2010, and lasted for several weeks, with testimony from expert witnesses, including Gregory Herek, a psychologist from the University of California, Davis, and Letitia Peplau, a psychologist from the University of California, Los Angeles. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Proposition 8 was motivated by animus towards gay and lesbian individuals, and that it had no rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The defendants argued that Proposition 8 was a valid exercise of the California voters' right to amend their constitution, with the support of Catholic Church and Mormon Church. The trial was also covered by CNN, Fox News, and other major news media outlets, including The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

Appeal

On August 4, 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendants appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, and Judge N. Randy Smith. The appeal was supported by Alliance Defense Fund and Focus on the Family, with amicus briefs filed by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The plaintiffs were supported by American Bar Association and National Education Association, with amicus briefs filed by California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union.

Impact

The ruling in the case had significant implications for the LGBT rights movement in the United States, as it marked one of the first times that a federal court had struck down a same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional. The case was cited as precedent in subsequent same-sex marriage cases, including United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, which ultimately led to the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. The case was also praised by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as a major victory for LGBT rights and equality. The case was supported by Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and other prominent Democratic leaders, including Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Aftermath

The case ultimately ended with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry on June 26, 2013, which dismissed the appeal on standing grounds, allowing the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to stand. The decision paved the way for same-sex marriage to resume in California, and was seen as a major victory for the LGBT rights movement. The case was celebrated by LGBT rights organizations, including GLAAD and PFLAG, and was recognized as a significant milestone in the struggle for LGBT equality in the United States. The case was also supported by Apple Inc., Google, and other major corporations, including Microsoft and Facebook. Category:United States Supreme Court cases