Perry v. Schwarzenegger

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 08:35, 27 December 2010 by Polycal (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Kirstin M. Perry v Arnold Schwarzenegger is a federal case challenging the constitutional validity of California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is an amendment to Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution that outlaws same-sex marriages performed after November 4, 2008.

The plaintiffs in Perry seek to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as contrary to the United States Constitution.

On Wednesday, August 4, 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled in the case that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and barred its enforcement.[1]

The case was filed on May 22, 2009 with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The non-jury trial began on January 11, 2010.[2]

Ninth Circuit

The August 2010 federal district court ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution was appealed. A 3-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard from attorneys on both sides on December 7, 2010.[3]

Lawsuit sponsors

The lawsuit is sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, led by Chad Griffin, and financed in part by Rob Reiner.[4]

The lawsuit was filed by celebrated attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies.[5]


The plaintiffs in the case say that they plan to establish that Proposition 8 is "irrational, indefensible and unconstitutional."[2]

Initial opposition

When the federal lawsuit was announced, several major groups opposed to Prop 8 denounced it, including:

In July, these same groups petitioned the court to be allowed to intervene on behalf of the plaintiffs.[6]

Griffin of AFER asked that these groups not be allowed to intervene in the case. He wrote a letter to the groups in early July 2009 saying, "You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed. In light of this, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene.”[6]

Attorneys Olson and Boies also asked the court not to allow these groups to intervene, saying that their intervention "poses a substantial risk of interference and delay...Having declined to bring their own federal challenge to Proposition 8, Our Family Coalition and their counsel [the gay rights groups] should not be allowed to usurp plaintiffs' lawsuit now that it is under way and moving forward on an expedited basis."[6]

Disclosure of campaign materials

A key early issue in the case was a request by plaintiffs that the court compel the "Yes on 8" campaign to release its internal campaign strategy documents. The reason for this request, according to one account, is that the plaintiffs believed that if they found evidence in these documents that the "Yes on 8" strategists were attempting "to sow fear and discrimination against gays and lesbians", this information would be relevant in helping a judge decide what the motivations were of those who voted in favor of Proposition 8.[7]

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered that the documents be disclosed. In early December 2009, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals suspended Walker's order.[8] In its decision, the 3-judge panel wrote, "The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the 1st Amendment."[9][10]

On December 16, one of the 27 active judges on the Ninth Circuit called for a vote to rehear the issue with a full 11-member panel of judges. Attorneys on both sides of the dispute were requested to file briefs on the matter by December 24, 2009[7] On December 30, the court announced that it was re-affirming its original ruling not to order disclosure.[11]

Televised coverage

On Wednesday, January 6, federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled that cameras will be allowed in his courtroom when he begins hearings on the federal lawsuit on January 11.

Video footage from the trial will be uploaded to YouTube daily.[12]

Supporters of Proposition 8 argued that televising the trial is unwise and illegal, leaving open the possibility that they will appeal Judge Walker's decision to televise the proceedings.[13]

The Courage Campaign has been a leading advocate of televising the proceedings.[14]

See also


  1. Sacramento Bee, "Judge rules Proposition 8 unconsitutional", August 4, 2010
  2. 2.0 2.1 Fox Reno, "Prop. 8 Opponents To Tell Judge Lawsuit Is Irrational", December 8, 2009
  3. Wall Street Journal, "Judges Grill Attorneys on Gay Marriage Ban ", December 7, 2010
  4. Arkansas Times, "From Wal-Mart to the White House", December 10, 2009
  5. San Francisco Chronicle, "Parties in Prop. 8 suit reject more plaintiffs", August 9, 2009
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 On Top Magazine, "Gay Groups Not Welcome In Federal Marriage Suit", August 8, 2009
  7. 7.0 7.1 Los Angeles Times, "Appeals court to vote on new hearing in Proposition 8 challenge", December 16, 2009
  8. San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop 8 backers likely to win disclosure fight", December 4, 2009
  9. Los Angeles Times, "Foes of California's gay-marriage ban lose federal appeal", December 12, 2009
  10. Ballot Access News, "9th Circuit Says Compelled Disclosure of Internal Campaign Communications Violates First Amendment", December 12, 2009
  11. San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop 8 campaign document ruling re-affirmed", December 31, 2009
  12. CNN, "Same-sex marriage trial to be shown on YouTube", January 7, 2010
  13. San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop 8 backers say TV coverage of trial unwise", December 30, 2009
  14. Blockbuster Democracy, "Should Prop 8 Federal Suit Be Televised?", January 5, 2010