Perry v. Brown, Nos. 10–16696

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtREINHARDT
Citation2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1705,671 F.3d 1052,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1550
PartiesKristin M. PERRY; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs–Appellees,City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk–Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar–Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants,Hak–Shing William Tam, Intervenor–Defendant,andDennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Mark A. Jansson; ProtectMarriage.com–Yes On 8, a Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants.Kristin M. Perry; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs–Appellees,City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk–Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar–Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants,Hak–Shing William Tam, Intervenor–Defendant,andDennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Mark A. Jansson; ProtectMarriage.com–Yes On 8, a Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants.
Decision Date07 February 2012
Docket NumberNos. 10–16696,11–16577.

12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1550
2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1705
671 F.3d 1052

Kristin M. PERRY; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs–Appellees,City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk–Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar–Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants,Hak–Shing William Tam, Intervenor–Defendant,andDennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Mark A. Jansson; ProtectMarriage.com–Yes On 8, a Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants.Kristin M. Perry; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs–Appellees,City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick O'Connell, in his official capacity as Clerk–Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar–Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants,Hak–Shing William Tam, Intervenor–Defendant,andDennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Mark A. Jansson; ProtectMarriage.com–Yes On 8, a Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants.

Nos. 10–16696

11–16577.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.Submission Withdrawn Jan. 4, 2011.Resubmitted Feb. 7, 2012.Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2011.Filed Feb. 7, 2012.


[671 F.3d 1058]

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Christopher D. Dusseault, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Sarah E. Piepmeier, Enrique A. Monagas, and Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Theodore B. Olson (argued), Matthew D. McGill, and Amir C. Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; David Boies (argued), Jeremy M. Goldman, and Theodore H. Uno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY; for plaintiffs-appellees Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney; Therese M. Stewart (argued), Chief Deputy City Attorney; Christine Van Aken and Mollie M. Lee, Deputy City Attorneys; San Francisco, CA; for intervenor-plaintiff-appellee City and County of San Francisco. Andrew P. Pugno, Law Offices of Andrew P. Pugno, Folsom, CA; Charles J. Cooper (argued), David H. Thompson, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., and Peter A. Patterson, Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Brian W. Raum and James A. Campbell, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ; for intervenor-defendants-appellants Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com. James Joseph Lynch, Jr., Sacramento, CA; for amicus curiae Margie Reilly. Paul Benjamin Linton, Thomas More Society, Northbrook, IL; Christopher M. Gacek, Family Research Council, Washington, D.C.; Thomas Brejcha, Thomas More Society, Chicago, IL; for amicus curiae the Family Research Council. Kelly J. Shackelford, Jeffrey C. Mateer, Hiriam S. Sasser, III, and Justin E. Butterfield, Liberty Institute, Plano, TX; for amici curiae Liberty Institute, Association of Maryland Families, California Family Council, Center for Arizona Policy, Citizens for Community Values, Cornerstone Action, Cornerstone Family Council, Delaware Family Policy Council, Family Action Council of Tennessee, the Family Foundation, the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, Family Policy Institute of Washington, Florida Family Policy Council, Georgia Family Council, Illinois Family Institute, Independence Law Center, Iowa Family Policy Center, Louisiana Family Forum Action, Massachusetts Family Institute, Michigan Family Forum, Minnesota Family Council, Missouri Family Policy Council, Montana Family Foundation, New Jersey Family First, New Jersey Family Policy Council, North Carolina Family Policy Council, Oklahoma Family Policy Council, Oregon Family Council, Palmetto Family Council, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Wisconsin Family Action, and Wywatch Family Action. Lynn D. Wardle, Marriage Law Project, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, UT; Stephen Kent Ehat, Lindon, UT; Lincoln C. Oliphant, Columbus School of Law, the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.; for amici curiae High Impact Leadership Coalition, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, and the Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. Dean R. Broyles and James M. Griffiths, the Western Center for Law & Policy, Escondido, CA; for amici curiae Parents and Friends of Ex–Gays and Desert Stream Ministries. M. Edward Whelan III, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C.; for amicus curiae the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mary E. McAlister, Stephen M. Crampton, and Rena M. Lindevaldsen, Liberty Counsel, Lynchburg, VA; Matthew D. Staver and Anita L. Staver, Liberty Counsel,

[671 F.3d 1059]

Orlando, FL; for amici curiae Liberty Counsel, Campaign for Children and Families, and JONAH Inc. Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, and Walter M. Weber, American Center for Law & Justice, Washington, D.C.; for amicus curiae the American Center for Law and Justice. Donald W. MacPherson, the MacPherson Group, Phoenix, AZ; for amicus curiae the Hausvater Project. Matthew B. McReynolds and Kevin T. Snider, Pacific Justice Institute, Sacramento, CA; for amicus curiae Pacific Justice Institute. Von G. Keetch, Alexander Dushku, and R. Shawn Gunnarson, Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT; Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., Jeffrey Hunter Moon, and Michael F. Moses, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C.; Carl H. Esbeck, National Association of Evangelicals, Washington, D.C.; James F. Sweeney, Sweeney & Greene LLP, Elk Grove, CA; for amici curiae United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, California Catholic Conference, National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Calvary Chapel Fellowship of Ministries of California, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Coral Ridge Ministries, the Council of Korean Churches in Southern California, Southern California Korean Ministers Association, and Holy Movement for America. Kristen K. Waggoner and Steven T. O'Ban, Ellis, Li & McKinstry PLLC, Seattle, WA; for amici curiae Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson. Gary G. Kreep, United States Justice Foundation, Ramona, CA; for amicus curiae National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Abram J. Pafford, Pafford, Lawrence & Ross, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; for amicus curiae American College of Pediatricians. John C. Eastman, Anthony T. Caso, and Karen J. Lugo, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Orange, CA; for amicus curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Kevin J. Hasson and Lori H. Windham, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C.; for amicus curiae the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Steven W. Fitschen, the National Legal Foundation, Virginia Beach, VA; for amicus curiae National Legal Foundation. Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, D.C.; for amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. Holly L. Carmichael, Los Gatos, CA; for amicus curiae Concerned Women of America. William C. Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation, Lehi, UT; Joshua K. Baker, National Organization for Marriage, Washington, D.C.; for amici curiae National Organization for Marriage, National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island, and Family Leader. Herbert G. Grey, Beaverton, OR; for amicus curiae Paul McHugh. Eugene Dong, Palo Alto, CA; for amicus curiae Eugene Dong. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General; Thomas M. Fischer, Solicitor General; and Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, State of Indiana; Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; E. Duncan Getchell, Solicitor General; and Stephen McCullough, Deputy Solicitor General, State of Virginia; Michael A. Cox, Attorney General and

[671 F.3d 1060]

Eric Restuccia, Solicitor General, State of Michigan; James D. Caldwell, Attorney General and Kyle Duncan, Appellate Chief, State of Louisiana; Troy King, Attorney General, State of Alabama; Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, State of Alaska; Bill McCollum, Attorney General, State of Florida; Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, State of Idaho; Jon Bruning, Attorney General, State of Nebraska; Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, State of South Carolina; Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, State of Utah; Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General, State of Wyoming; for amici curiae States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming. Kenneth A. Klukowski, American Civil Rights Union, Alexandria, VA; for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union. Richard G. Katerndahl, San Rafael, CA; for amicus curiae Catholics for the Common Good. Jerome C. Roth, Michelle Friedland, Mark R. Conrad, and Miriam L. Seifter, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 practice notes
  • Doe v. Trump, Civil Action No. 17–1597 (CKK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 30 Octubre 2017
    ...government's burden in this case to show that this act was substantially related to important government objectives. See Perry v. Brown , 671 F.3d 1052, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated and remanded sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry , 570 U.S. 693, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) ("Wit......
  • Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. Norris, Case No. 09cv0897 BEN (JMA).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 22 Marzo 2012
    ...no public defense is mounted, it is only the official proponents who have standing to defend the initiative in court. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1064–65, 1072 (9th Cir.2012) (“we do know that California law confers on ‘initiative sponsors' the authority ‘to defend, in lieu of public off......
  • Golinski v. United States Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 10–00257 JSW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 22 Febrero 2012
    ...(1972), which ostensibly addressed whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, is irrelevant here. See Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 n. 14, 2012 WL 372713, at *17 n. 14 (9th Cir.2012) ( “ Perry II ”). However, it is established that there is a fundamental right to m......
  • Page v. Tri–City Healthcare Dist., Case No. 12–CV–198 JLS (WMC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 19 Marzo 2012
    ...not, but whether they do so has no [860 F.Supp.2d 1161]bearing on the parties' Article III standing in federal court.” Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2012). But, although the federal standing inquiry does not depend on the merits of the plaintiff's causes of action, “it often turns ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
72 cases
  • Doe v. Trump, Civil Action No. 17–1597 (CKK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 30 Octubre 2017
    ...government's burden in this case to show that this act was substantially related to important government objectives. See Perry v. Brown , 671 F.3d 1052, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated and remanded sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry , 570 U.S. 693, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) ("Wit......
  • Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. Norris, Case No. 09cv0897 BEN (JMA).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 22 Marzo 2012
    ...no public defense is mounted, it is only the official proponents who have standing to defend the initiative in court. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1064–65, 1072 (9th Cir.2012) (“we do know that California law confers on ‘initiative sponsors' the authority ‘to defend, in lieu of public off......
  • Golinski v. United States Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 10–00257 JSW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 22 Febrero 2012
    ...(1972), which ostensibly addressed whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, is irrelevant here. See Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 n. 14, 2012 WL 372713, at *17 n. 14 (9th Cir.2012) ( “ Perry II ”). However, it is established that there is a fundamental right to m......
  • Page v. Tri–City Healthcare Dist., Case No. 12–CV–198 JLS (WMC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 19 Marzo 2012
    ...not, but whether they do so has no [860 F.Supp.2d 1161]bearing on the parties' Article III standing in federal court.” Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2012). But, although the federal standing inquiry does not depend on the merits of the plaintiff's causes of action, “it often turns ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT