SCOTUS Dismisses Prop 8 Case Ruling Proponents Have No Standing


The Supreme Court has ruled that Proposition 8 proponents have no standing, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand and paving the way for same-sex marriages to begin in California.

Further litigation may occur over whether marriages can begin.

Ari Ezra Waldman will have complete analysis coming up! Stay tuned.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Wow! What a day!

    Posted by: Clayton | Jun 26, 2013 10:33:01 AM

  2. Holy cow. Victory after victory. History is being made today!

    Posted by: Lucas H | Jun 26, 2013 10:34:49 AM

  3. This is good because a ruling on gay marriage across the board probably would have been against us, considering how tight the DOMA repeal was.

    Posted by: Jesse | Jun 26, 2013 10:37:39 AM

  4. Cue the crying about "activists judges" from NOM in 3...2...1...

    Posted by: e.c. | Jun 26, 2013 10:41:17 AM

  5. Wonderful. I have tears in my eyes, because this is an excellent and happy day for lgbt people in US. Dear US forumers here, enjoy and celebrate!!

    Posted by: Matt26 | Jun 26, 2013 10:43:23 AM

  6. Judicial politics makes strange bedfellows in this decision. Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Roberts and Scalia on one side. And Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor on the other.

    I hate that I am on the same side as Scalia on anything, but in this case, I will make an exception.

    Posted by: gr8guyca | Jun 26, 2013 10:43:56 AM

  7. DOMA Gone! Prop 8 Gone!

    Just about the best day ever in history for LGBTIQ Americans.

    6.26 National Gay Day

    Posted by: JONES | Jun 26, 2013 10:47:26 AM

  8. What an awesome day!

    Posted by: fairi5fair | Jun 26, 2013 10:47:53 AM

  9. Today is a day to rejoice. After 237 years, we'll be able to celebrate full equality this July 4th.

    Posted by: chasmader | Jun 26, 2013 10:51:17 AM

  10. As the story develops, can we get the link to the Prop 8 ruling. I like to read the decisions.

    I cried this morning.

    Posted by: Fahd | Jun 26, 2013 10:53:38 AM

  11. Don't discount Kennedy's and Sotomayor's dissents. They may have been pushing to make any ban on same-sex marriage illegal nationwide. Consequently, Scalia probably pushed for a middling path to ensure that a nationwide ban wouldn't happen. I'm disappointed that this Court did not make a truly "landmark" ruling on a blatant civil rights issue. It was within their power, but given the strong opposing views among the justices, this was probably the best outcome we could hope for.

    Posted by: Superman | Jun 26, 2013 10:57:41 AM

  12. When you look at the wording of the DOMA ruling, I can't see any way these state marriage bans can be Constitutional.

    Posted by: Ken | Jun 26, 2013 10:59:55 AM

  13. Our opponents had no standing in part because they could not demonstrate that they would suffer actual harm if gay and lesbian marriages would be recognized. That might set a strong precedent, especially in states that already have civil unions with the same rights as marriage (since there would be no new financial implications if marriages were recognized).

    Posted by: Jester | Jun 26, 2013 11:02:03 AM

  14. beautiful day.

    Posted by: Joe | Jun 26, 2013 11:05:00 AM

  15. Nevermind, I go the link on

    Posted by: Fahd | Jun 26, 2013 11:11:26 AM

  16. For those interested.

    Prop 8 Decision (Sekhar v. US):

    DOMA Decision (US v. Windsor):

    Posted by: Superman | Jun 26, 2013 11:11:27 AM

  17. Sorry, wrong link for Prop 8. Too much of a hurry to copy/paste properly.

    Prop 8 Decision (Hollingsworth v. Perry):

    Posted by: Superman | Jun 26, 2013 11:17:01 AM

  18. Superman has the Prop 8 Decision incorrect it is NOT Sekhar Vs. US.

    It is Hollingsworth Vs. Perry see below for the opinion:

    Posted by: Maltisv | Jun 26, 2013 11:17:44 AM

  19. My partner and I went on our first date the day after Prop 8 was voted in. It's time to keep that promise!! Now, how long before we can do this! WAHOOOOO!! :)

    Posted by: DragonWoof | Jun 26, 2013 11:18:14 AM

  20. The opinions are available in pdf Fahd. Do a web search 'Prop 8 pdf'.

    Reading opinion & dissent in Prop 8 I think Kennedy would have sided with equality and his opinion on standing makes more sense.
    Standing was the face saving way for Roberts to take. Would love to know the discussion and arguments in chambers that went on over this. Have to wait for the biographies I guess.

    This ruling vacated the Ninth ruling which takes it back to the California Supreme Court decision so that limits marriage to California but that's still a huge win.

    Posted by: JONES | Jun 26, 2013 11:19:25 AM

  21. Great to know my Limited Edition California Marriage tm is being obsoleted. Time to buy a cake, dudes. :)

    Posted by: Mousie | Jun 26, 2013 11:29:21 AM

  22. @EC
    Let em weep. It is a court that was appointed mostly by Repugnicans.

    Posted by: jleo71 | Jun 26, 2013 11:31:26 AM

  23. Oh, lack of standing isn't much of a victory. Now the petitioning process in CA will be fought over in federal court when the state doesn't like the result. Over the long term I don't see anything good out of it, even though it seems to reverse Prop 8. This may or may not work out for CA gay marriage either. A new federal judge might vacate the original ruling, or the ninth may request a new trial. It's a very tepid victory.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 26, 2013 12:24:50 PM

  24. The court has lost its damned mind, and whatever little legitimacy it had left.

    Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan sold LGBTs down the river with this ruling. The constitutional right to marriage was within sight, and they took a timid, cowardly, do-nothing approach, joining a decision that secures NOTHING for LGBTs nationwide, and only gives rise to infinitely more litigation on Prop 8 and marriage equality in California. This isn't even a baby step forward. It's barely even a lean.

    Sad to say it, but I think it's time for Ginsberg to step off the stage. She's got her head forever stuck in Roe v. Wade. She's losing new battles by continuing to fight old ones. She had damned better set her ego aside and let Obama appoint a new justice who can fight for a progressive perspective for years to come.

    Breyer, frankly, should consider doing the same. Kagan? She appears ready to play Thomas to Ginsberg's Scalia. Utter disappointment in Kagan's timidity here. And we're stuck with her for awhile.

    What were these three buffoons thinking?

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 26, 2013 12:59:16 PM

  25. In describing the history of the case, the Supreme Court ruling stated that 'The complaint named as defendants California’s Governor, attorney general, and various other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws. Those officials refused to defend the law, although they have continued to enforce it throughout this litigation. The District Court allowed petitioners—the official proponents of the initiative, see Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §342 (West 2003)—to intervene to defend it. After a 12-day bench trial, the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, permanently enjoining the California officials named as defendants from enforcing the law, and “directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision” shall not enforce it.'

    That sounds like good news, but there is a catch: Judge Walker's district did not cover all of California. Conceivably some low level bureaucrat not in Walker's jurisdiction who opposes same-sex marriages could file a lawsuit because he was being compelled to not enforce Proposition Eight. The judge in a different district does not have to accept judge Walker's decision as a precedent, so in theory we could end up with two contradictory rulings. While hopefully an unlikely outcome, the pro Prop 8 people might try to "judge shop" by picking the most conservative district they can find. Then what happens? Of course, if they do that, California's current state officials would undoubtedly argue in our favor, and the 9th Circuit Court's agreement with Judge Walker is a reasonable indication of what would happen on an appeal.

    So, let's hope for the best. But keep in mind that the opposition is a bit like the Russian monk Rasputin, who was assassinated with great difficulty due to him being physically very hard to kill: . Don't just nail down the coffin - seal it to make sure no air can get in and then sit on it for a few hours to be sure.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 26, 2013 1:10:42 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA in 5-4 Decision« «