Last December, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two same-sex marriage cases. Those cases include Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to California’s controversial Proposition 8 measure, and a case out of New York, U.S. v Windsor, which considers the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The Supreme Court has now issued opinions on Proposition 8 and DOMA.
Proposition 8 was just handed down.
First, some background: Proposition 8 was put on the ballot in California in 2008 and added a new provision to the California Constitution which provided that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In other words, it was a ban on same-sex marriage. The matter went to court and was initially upheld (though existing same-sex marriages were grandfathered). In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 finding that the law violates same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection and due process under the US Constitution. That ruling was put on hold after the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was confusing to many because the Ninth Circuit did find that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. However, the appeals panel ruled that proponents of Prop 8 had standing to appeal of Judge Walker’s decision, setting the stage for more legal maneuvering.
I suggested in 2010 that any Supreme Court ruling would be limited to the issues at law as defined in California and not a broad commentary on equal rights. And it was. The Supreme Court didn’t comment on the merits of the underlying case but rather the procedure, finding “Petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court’s order.”
The opinion goes on to say:
The Court does not question California’s sovereign right to maintain an initiative process, or the right of initiative proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts. But standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. No matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override this Court’s settled law to the contrary… States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.
And with that, the case was vacated and remanded meaning that the Ninth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal in the first place. The case was sent back to the court with orders to dismiss. The result is that the lower court ruling which struck down Prop 8 remains in place – it’s a procedural victory applicable only in California: same-sex marriage can resume in California.
You can read the opinion here (downloads as a pdf).
More commentary to come!
