City and County of San Francisco v. State
128 Cal. App. 4th 1030, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 722 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An organization's political or philosophical interest in upholding a law, even one its members helped enact, does not constitute a direct and immediate interest sufficient to permit intervention in litigation challenging that law's validity.
Facts:
- California voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative which was codified as Family Code section 308.5 and states, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'
- The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund (Fund) was established approximately one year after Proposition 22's passage with the express purpose of defending and enforcing the initiative.
- The Fund's board members and supporters, including the initiative's official proponent Senator William J. (Pete) Knight, had invested significant time and effort in campaigning for the passage of Proposition 22.
- The Fund claimed to represent over 15,000 California residents who had financially contributed to support its goal of defending the state's marriage laws.
- In February 2004, the City and County of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, acting contrary to existing state law.
Procedural Posture:
- The City and County of San Francisco filed a complaint in superior court challenging the constitutionality of California's marriage statutes.
- A similar lawsuit, Woo v. Lockyer, was filed by several individuals and advocacy groups.
- The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund (Fund) filed motions to intervene in both cases.
- The superior court (trial court) ordered the two cases to be consolidated.
- After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the Fund's motions to intervene.
- The Fund, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an organization established to defend a voter-enacted initiative have a direct and immediate interest sufficient to permit intervention under Code of Civil Procedure section 387(a) in a lawsuit challenging that initiative, based solely on its organizational purpose and its members' prior support for the initiative?
Opinions:
Majority - McGuiness, P. J.
No. An organization's interest in upholding a law it supports is considered consequential, not direct, and is therefore insufficient for permissive intervention unless the judgment itself will directly add to or detract from the organization's or its members' legal rights. To intervene, a party must show it will 'either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.' Here, the Fund failed to demonstrate that a judgment invalidating the marriage statutes would directly harm its members by, for example, impairing their existing marriages or affecting their property rights. The Fund's interest is purely philosophical and political; its members' prior campaign efforts and the potential for reputational harm are indirect consequences, not the direct legal effects required for intervention. California precedent, such as Socialist Workers and Rominger, clarifies that a general political interest in a statute's validity, without a showing of tangible harm, is too abstract to support intervention.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'direct and immediate interest' standard for permissive intervention in California, establishing that a purely ideological or political stake in a law's validity is insufficient. It raises the bar for public interest and advocacy groups seeking to join litigation, requiring them to allege a tangible, concrete harm or benefit that flows directly from the judgment's legal operation. The ruling distinguishes between a direct legal effect on a party's rights and the indirect, consequential effects of a court decision, such as reputational harm or the nullification of political efforts. Consequently, future groups wanting to intervene in constitutional challenges must demonstrate a more specific and personal stake than just being the law's sponsor or supporter.
