Hollingsworth v. Perry

Background

A group of voters in California approved a ballot measure (Proposition 8) that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples after the California Supreme Court had recognized same-sex marriage rights. Two same-sex couples sued in federal court; state officials declined to defend the law, so the private supporters of the ballot measure (the proponents) intervened and appealed after a federal trial court struck down the law and issued an injunction.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether those private proponents could appeal in federal court. The Court said federal courts require that a person show a personal, concrete injury to have standing. The proponents only had a generalized interest in the law’s validity and no personal stake in enforcing it. Even California law that lets proponents defend initiatives in state proceedings did not satisfy Article III, because the power to decide who may invoke federal judicial power is governed by federal standing rules. The Court relied on prior cases saying private parties cannot claim the State's injury unless they themselves suffer a distinct harm.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents private initiative supporters from representing a State in federal court when public officials refuse to defend a law, unless those supporters show a personal, particularized injury. That means some voter-approved laws might not be defended on appeal in federal court if elected officials decline to act. The decision emphasizes the federal courts’ limit to disputes between parties with concrete stakes.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy (joined by three other Justices) dissented, arguing California law authorizes proponents to defend enacted initiatives, that the State suffered a concrete injury, and that federal standing should allow those proponents to pursue appellate review.