Please fella, I didn't get past Clearinghouse :/From The Civic Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
University of Michigan Law School
Case Name Hollingsworth v. Perry PB-CA-0029
Docket / Court 3:09-cv-02292-VRW ( N.D. Cal.)
Case Type(s) Public Benefits / Government Services
On May 22, 2009, two same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in California filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 against the State of California in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that California, by amending its constitution in 2008 to once again limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, had violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to review the case. The court ordered briefing on two questions on review:(1) whether the Equal Protection Clause makes unconstitutional California's definition of marriage as available only to different sex couples, and (2) whether the backers of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal the 9th Circuit decision striking it down.
On June 26, 2013, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan), the Supreme Court found that nobody with standing to appeal had, in fact, appealed the district court ruling, and accordingly vacated that decision. This left in place the district court's decision striking Prop 8 down -- so same-sex marriage is legal is California.
Christopher Schad - 12/07/2012
Margo Schlanger - 06/26/2013*
JUST NOW checked this - 06/20/2014, 5:07 pm
NOTHING HAS CHANGED since 6/26/13* it's OVER.
Your post looks like the fine print at the bottom of the cable bill. And frankly, who the hell reads that :/
Go Bruins! Time to play, not read a four page essay!