Kristin Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger - Order Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of California
628 F.3d 1191
9th Cir.2011Background
- Prop 8 added Art. I, §7.5 to California Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.
- Strauss v. Horton upheld Prop 8 and allowed limited enforcement while preserving existing same-sex marriages.
- In federal suit Perry v. Schwarzenegger, district court found Prop 8 unconstitutional and issued injunction against enforcement.
- Prop 8 proponents intervened to defend Prop 8; state officials declined to defend.
- Ninth Circuit, citing Arizonans for Official English, certifies California Supreme Court question on proponents’ standing under California law to defend/appeal when officials refuse.
- Court lacks controlling California authority and seeks authoritative CA Supreme Court answer to determine jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to defend/appeal. | Proponents have a particularized state-law interest to defend the initiative. | California law unclear; need CA Supreme Court ruling on proponents' standing. | Certified question to CA Supreme Court; standing unresolved pending CA ruling. |
| Whether California law authorizes proponents to defend as agents of the People. | Proponents may defend as agents when officials refuse. | Authority not clearly defined by CA law. | Unclear under CA law; need authoritative decision from CA Supreme Court. |
| Whether California officials' refusal to defend affects standing to appeal. | Officials’ refusal creates need for proponents to defend or appeal. | Standing depends on CA law; issue for CA Supreme Court. | Certifies to CA Supreme Court; no resolution on this point yet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (standing when state actors refuse to defend)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (intervenor standing requirements)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury in fact for standing)
- Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (proponents intervened to defend Prop 8 in CA Supreme Court)
- Building Industry Ass’n v. City of Camarillo, 41 Cal.3d 810 (1986) (discussion of proponents’ intervention context (dicta))
- Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati, 92 Cal.App.3d 146 (1979) (post-enactment initiative standing discussion (intermediate court))
- City & County of San Francisco v. State, 128 Cal.App.4th 1030 (2005) (discussion of proponents’ standing context)
- Costa v. Super. Ct., 37 Cal.4th 986 (2006) (issues relating to initiative challenges)