Perry v. Schwarzenegger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case name	''KRISTIN M. PERRY et al., Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Governor of California, etc., Defendants; DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Intervenor-Defendants.''
Judges sitting	Vaughn R. Walker
Keywords
Equal Protection, Same-sex marriage, Sexual Orientation

Kirstin M. Perry v Arnold Schwarzenegger is a U.S. District Court case challenging the validity of California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Protection Act) is an amendment to the California State Constitution that outlaws same-sex marriage. It was adopted as a ballot initiative in 2008. The plaintiffs in Perry seek to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as contrary to the United States Constitution.

Contents 1 Background 2 Parties 3 Pretrial motions 4 Trial 5 References

[edit] Background

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held in the case In re Marriage Cases that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution. The following month, same-sex couples were able to marry in California. In November 2008, California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage.^[1] Following the adoption of Proposition 8, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment under various state constitutional provisions. On May 25, 2009, the California Supreme Court held, in Strauss v. Horton, that Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment, but that same-sex marriages contracted before its passage remained valid.^[2]

The week before the Strauss decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples.^[3][4] The couples' attorneys are former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and David Boies, who worked on opposite sides in the Bush v. Gore case. Olson said that he planned for this case to appear before the Supreme Court within the next two years.^[5]

Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who originally won same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton, opposed the move because they felt that a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good at the present time.^[3] Olson rebuffed this claim, saying that:

David and I have studied constitutional law longer than we’d rather admit, and I think we know what we’re doing ... this case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the U.S. Constitution.^[6]

[edit] Parties

In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. For the same reason, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license.^[4] The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health.^[4] District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is hearing the case. ^[7]

The attorney general backs the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.^[8] Governor Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path,^[9] saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination."

Two groups, the official proponents of Proposition 8 led by Dennis Hollingsworth, and a rival group, the Campaign for California Families, sought to intervene as defendants. The court allowed the official proponents to intervene, filling the void left by the state officials’ acquiescence. The judge denied the request from the Campaign for California Families.^[7][10]

Several groups also sought to intervene as plaintiffs, including the groups who had prosecuted the In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton actions.^[11] San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case. The city cited its work in the earlier cases provided "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination." City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put anti-gay discrimination on trial based on the facts."^[12] Walker permitted only San Francisco to intervene, as it could speak to the impact of Proposition 8 on local governments.^[10] He also ordered the attorney general to assist San Francisco in analyzing Proposition 8's impact. Judge Walker stated that necessary speed and swiftness "on an issue of this magnitude and importance" were required and that the intervention of additional groups would only complicate and stall the case.^[9]

[edit] Pretrial motions

The AFER also filed a preliminary injunction that would have immediately restored same-sex marriage in California until the federal suit is decided.^[13] Judge Vaughn R. Walker tentatively denied the injunction, and said he would instead proceed with a speedy trial.^[14]

Plaintiffs requested that the campaign produce internal documents that relate to the purpose and intent of the amendment and the development of political messages during the campaign. The Proposition 8 proponents objected to the request because of the potential chilling effect on political speech, among other grounds.^[15] On October 1, Judge Walker rejected the contention that the First Amendment shielded all of those communications.^[16] The proponents appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and separately moved to stay the proceedings in the district court. Noting that the proponents were unlikely to succeed in this appeal, Judge Walker rejected the stay request on October 23.^[17] Regardless, the proponents continue to assert a First Amendment privilege over these documents, a sampling of which Judge Walker is now reviewing privately.^[18]

In September, Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion for summary judgment. Running more than 100 pages, the motion asked the court to rule that Proposition 8 did not offend the U.S. Constitution without the need to find facts at a trial. The motion asserted that a 1972 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (Baker v. Nelson) forecloses any further review by the court. Failing that, the motion argued that all of the couples' claims failed as a matter of law.^[19] After a two-hour hearing on October 13, Judge Walker denied the motion. He noted that the Supreme Court doctrine on sexual-orientation and gender discrimination had changed since 1972. Resolving the amendment's validity, Walker noted, required hearing testimony at trial.^[20]

[edit] Trial

Judge Walker ordered a trial set for January 2010, which is set to address questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgement, or constitutes a mental disorder.^[21] The judge also asked for the parties' opinions on televising the trial.

[edit] References