Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger), 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-144), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger), 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-144), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. As a result of this ruling, the district court trial decision from 2010, which found that the voter-approved California Proposition 8 had been unconstitutional, in effect allowed same-sex marriage in that state to resume. (en)
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.The salient effect of the ruling was that same-sex marriage in California resumed, as the district court trial decision from 2010, which found that the voter-approved California Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage had been unconstitutional, was thus final. The official sponsors of Proposition 8 had appealed the district court decision, but without their having standing, the appeal failed.The case, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-144), was formerly known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger). (en)
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California. The case began in 2009 under the name Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Walker ruled that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned the ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After two governors of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, refused to defend Proposition 8, same-sex marriage opponents appealed to the Supreme Court. It reached the United States Supreme Court as Hollingsworth v. Perry, who held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.The salient effect of the ruling was that same-sex marriage in California resumed under the district court trial decision from 2010. The case was docketed with the Supreme Court at 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-144). During the time that Jerry Brown was governor, the case was known as Perry v. Brown. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2014-11-08 07:09:22 (xsd:date)
  • 2016-07-27 05:14:42 (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 23541913 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 123439 (xsd:integer)
  • 125321 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2014-10-25 18:57:56 (xsd:date)
  • 2016-07-02 02:09:07 (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 325 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 631089138 (xsd:integer)
  • 727923774 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:align
  • right (en)
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-03-26 (xsd:date)
  • 0001-03-26 (xsd:date)
  • --03-26
dbp:argueyear
  • 2013 (xsd:integer)
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-06-26 (xsd:date)
  • 0001-06-26 (xsd:date)
  • --06-26
dbp:decideyear
  • 2013 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Kennedy (en)
dbp:docket
  • 12 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname
  • Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. (en)
dbp:hasPhotoCollection
dbp:holding
  • Sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court and the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (en)
  • After lower courts ruled that California's ban on gay marriage was an unconstitutional violation of the right to equal protection under the law, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage opponents did not have standing to sue as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision. (en)
  • After lower courts ruled that California's ban on same-sex marriage was an unconstitutional violation of the right to equal protection under the law, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents did not have standing to intervene as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision. (en)
dbp:id
  • V5dIUOCWslU (en)
  • nlfSffNy5dE (en)
  • W7n8HlxMfx4 (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan (en)
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (en)
dbp:majority
  • Roberts (en)
dbp:oralargument
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 133 (xsd:integer)
dbp:prior
  • 17280.0
  • 25920.0
dbp:quote
  • It was still emotional to be denied [a marriage license]. But in all fairness [to the clerk], she handled it really well. [Her words] reiterated that we were denied equal rights. It made us feel that we made the right decision to be a part of this case. (en)
  • What's at stake in the Perry case is not just the right of California voters to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, but whether marriage will be redefined in every state in the nation. (en)
  • "Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people." (en)
dbp:scotus
  • 2010 (xsd:integer)
dbp:source
  • 0001-08-04 (xsd:date)
  • 0001-08-04 (xsd:date)
  • Jeffrey Zarrillo, co-plaintiff (en)
  • ProtectMarriage.com, defendant-intervenor (en)
  • --08-04
dbp:title
  • 9 (xsd:integer)
dbp:uspage
  • ___ (en)
dbp:usvol
  • 570 (xsd:integer)
dbp:width
  • 270 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger), 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-144), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. (en)
  • Hollingsworth v. (en)
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California. The case began in 2009 under the name Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Walker ruled that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned the ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:depiction
foaf:homepage
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. (en)
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbp:reAffirmedBy of
is foaf:primaryTopic of