Ninth Circuit hears arguments on California same-sex marriage ban

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments [video] Monday in Perry v. Schwarzenegger [case materials] on Proposition 8 [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], California's same-sex marriage ban. The hearing was divided into two one-hour sessions, with the first section focusing on the issue of standing, and the second focusing on Proposition 8's constitutionality. A federal judge struck down Proposition 8 [JURIST report] in August. Lawyers for parties seeking to appeal, including Proposition 8 supporters Protect Marriage [advocacy website] and Imperial County, California, deputy clerk Isabel Vargas argued that their clients had standing to defend the measure, while lawyers for Proposition 8 opponents argued that there was no injury suffered by the appellants. The opponents also argued that there was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The proceedings were televised live on C-SPAN.

In October, lawyers representing the city of San Francisco submitted a brief [text, PDF] arguing that Proposition 8 is irrational under California state law [JURIST report]. In September, officials in Imperial County, California, also submitted a brief [JURIST report] appealing the federal court's decision finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The appeal came just days after supporters of Proposition 8 filed a brief [JURIST report] seeking standing in order to file the appeal. Earlier in the month, a judge for the California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown [official websites] is required to appeal the decision of the district court. In August, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay [JURIST report] of district court's decision, pending appeal. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit, and their refusal to oppose the stay left defendant-intervenors Project Marriage and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.

 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.