Hollingsworth v. Perry
570 U.S. (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private party does not have Article III standing in federal court to defend the constitutionality of a state law when the state officials charged with enforcing that law have chosen not to appeal a judicial decision invalidating it. A generalized interest in a law's validity is insufficient to demonstrate the concrete and particularized injury required for federal jurisdiction.
Facts:
- In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the state constitution.
- Later that year, California voters approved Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
- Hollingsworth and other petitioners were the official proponents who sponsored the Proposition 8 ballot initiative.
- Two same-sex couples, including Kristin Perry, wished to marry in California but were prevented from doing so by Proposition 8.
- The California officials responsible for enforcing the state's marriage laws, such as the Governor and Attorney General, declined to defend Proposition 8 against legal challenges.
Procedural Posture:
- Two same-sex couples sued California officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
- Hollingsworth and other official proponents of Proposition 8 were permitted by the District Court to intervene to defend the law, as state officials refused to do so.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement.
- The state officials (defendants) chose not to appeal the District Court's judgment.
- The proponents (intervenors-appellants) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court, which held that California law authorizes initiative proponents to defend a measure in court when state officials refuse.
- Based on the state court's answer, the Ninth Circuit concluded the proponents had federal standing and affirmed the District Court's ruling on the merits.
- The proponents (petitioners) then sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 a private party who sponsored a successful state ballot initiative have Article III standing to appeal a federal district court's judgment holding the initiative unconstitutional, when the state officials named as defendants have chosen not to appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The proponents of Proposition 8 do not have Article III standing to appeal the district court's judgment. To have standing, a party must have suffered a 'concrete and particularized' injury, not merely a generalized grievance about the law. Here, the petitioners' only interest is the satisfaction of seeing a law they support upheld, which is an injury shared by the public at large and does not constitute a personal, tangible harm. While California law may authorize proponents to defend an initiative in court, state law cannot create Article III standing, which is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. The petitioners are not agents of the state; they are private parties who hold no official office, are not controlled by the state, and owe no fiduciary duty to the people. Therefore, without a direct stake in the outcome, they cannot appeal the lower court's decision.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal. The State of California undoubtedly suffered a cognizable injury when its constitutional provision was invalidated. The critical question is who has the authority to represent the State's interest in remedying that injury. The California Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of state law, unanimously held that the proponents are authorized under California law to defend the initiative when state officials refuse to do so. The majority's insistence on a formal agency relationship disrespects California's sovereign right to structure its government and its initiative process, which is designed to operate independently of public officials. By denying standing, the Court allows a single district court's decision to become effectively unreviewable, undermining the democratic process that led to the initiative's passage.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts the initiative and referendum process used in many states by clarifying that federal standing is a rigid constitutional requirement that cannot be conferred by state law. It creates a potential procedural gap: if state officials disagree with a voter-passed initiative, they can allow a single federal district court to invalidate it and then render that decision final by refusing to appeal. This holding reinforces the 'generalized grievance' bar to standing and solidifies the principle that only parties with a direct, personal stake in a case's outcome can litigate in federal court, potentially limiting the power of citizen-led legislative movements to defend their enactments.
Unlock the full brief for Hollingsworth v. Perry