Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al., 570 U. S. ____ (2013) [Majority Opinion and Dissents]

PDF EBook by John Roberts

EBook Description

Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al., 570 U. S. ____ (2013) [Majority Opinion and Dissents] PDF EBook Perry (initially Perry v. Schwarzenegger, then Perry v. Brown is a case before the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, a three judge appellate panel held that California's Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to allow only opposite- PDFsex couples to marry, was unconstitutional.

Lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were filed in state and federal courts nearly immediately after the initiative's passage. In Strauss v. Horton (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was a valid enactment under California law. However, in August 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judgment was stayed pending appeal. On February 7, 2012, a divided three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court, though it did so on much narrower grounds than the District Court did. On June 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied a request for a rehearing en banc. Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case (captioned Hollingsworth v. Perry) to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. On August 24, opponents of Proposition 8 asked the Supreme Court not to hear the case. Olson said, "It was with strong mixed emotions... But in the end, we represent real, live people, and if the court doesn't take the case, we've won and our clients and thousands of others in California can get married."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case on December 7, 2012, ordering the parties to brief and argue the additional question of whether supporters of Prop. 8 have standing, i.e., a legal right to be involved in the case, under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Olson and Boies stated that they will "address all the issues, focused on the fundamental constitutional right to marry of all citizens" before the Supreme Court, while defenders of Proposition 8 stated they now have their first chance at a fair trial since they began defending Proposition 8. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013. For the United States, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. was the amicus curiae supporting the respondents.

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court rendered its 5–4 decision overturning the appeals court decision, ruling that the backers of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal. Consequently, the decision of the district court stands, again legalizing same-sex marriage in California. The Supreme Court did not reach the substantive merits of the case, and its ruling does not apply to same-sex marriage bans in states other than California. Like this book? Read online this: The Consitution of the United States of America Analysis and Interpretation, 2004 Supplement, Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 29, 2004, Black Majority.

Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al., 570 U. S. ____ (2013) [Majority Opinion and Dissents] PDF download

Select filetype to download Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al., 570 U. S. ____ (2013) [Majority Opinion and Dissents]: