Hollingsworth v. Perry

To book an interview, click on the "Book an Interview" button on any page at ADFmedia.org.
Friday, July 12, 2013

Description:  In May 2009, attorneys representing two men and two women in California filed suit in a San Francisco federal court to challenge the constitutionality of a 2008 voter-approved state constitutional amendment that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are part of the legal team for ProtectMarriage.com, which intervened to defend the amendment. ProtectMarriage.com is the banner organization for the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8. Both a federal district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued rulings against the amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry. Oral arguments took place on March 26, 2013, and the court decided the case on June 26, 2013.  


Rule of law bypassed in Prop. 8 case

Supreme Court leaves in place premature 9th Circuit order against Prop. 8
Sunday, June 30, 2013

Attorney sound bite:  Austin R. Nimocks

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Sunday declined to vacate Friday’s premature order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the lawsuit concerning California’s marriage amendment. The Proposition 8 legal team filed an emergency application Saturday that argued the 9th Circuit’s order prematurely lifted a stay on a district court order that had declared the amendment unconstitutional.

Kennedy, the associate justice who decides such motions pertaining to the 9th Circuit, declined the Proposition 8 legal team’s request even though court rules require the 9th Circuit to wait for a certified copy of the judgment from the Supreme Court before taking action. The high court has not yet issued its certified judgment.

“Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The 9th Circuit has failed to abide by its own word that the stay would remain in place until final disposition by the Supreme Court. When courts act contrary to their own statements, the public’s confidence in the justice system is undermined.”

When the 9th Circuit issued the stay, it stated that “the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.” The 9th Circuit acknowledged Wednesday that disposition would not occur until at least 25 days from June 26, but it then lifted the stay on Friday without explanation.

“The more than 7 million Californians that voted to enact Proposition 8 deserve nothing short of the full respect and due process our judicial system provides,” Nimocks said.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed the emergency application together with Andrew P. Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the banner organization for the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case concerning Proposition 8, on Wednesday.
 
  • Pronunciation guide: Nimocks (NIM’-ucks)
 
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
 
# # # | Ref. 26561

Additional resources: Hollingsworth v. Perry

Scroll down to view additional resources pertaining to this case and its surrounding issue
Friday, July 12, 2013

Previous news releases:

  • 2013-06-29: Will the rule of law prevail in Calif.?
  • 2013-06-26: Supreme Court declines to hear appeal of Prop. 8
  • 2013-06-26: Statement from Prop. 8 attorneys on Supreme Court decision
  • 2013-03-25: Marriage defenders to Supreme Court: Let debate continue
  • 2013-03-19: Attacks on Prop. 8 rebutted
  • 2013-02-21: Comment on brief filed by Prop. 8 opponents
  • 2013-02-01: Broad support for marriage, Prop. 8 reflected in numerous briefs at Supreme Court
  • 2013-01-22: Prop. 8 defenders: Uphold marriage, let public debate
  • 2012-12-07: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Prop. 8, DOMA cases
  • 2012-07-31: Marriage defenders ask U.S. Supreme Court to hear Calif. Prop. 8 case
  • 2012-06-05: Marriage defenders will ask U.S. Supreme Court to hear Calif. Prop. 8 case
  • 2012-02-21: Prop. 8 defenders appeal to full 9th Circuit
  • 2012-02-07: Prop. 8 defenders will appeal decision upholding Hollywood, S.F. attack on marriage
  • 2011-12-07: Press conference Thursday after hearing at 9th Circuit in Calif. marriage amendment case
  • 2011-11-17: Calif. Supreme Court: Prop. 8 deserves defense
  • 2011-09-02: Can Prop. 8 proponents defend marriage when Calif. officials refuse to do so?
  • 2011-06-14: ProtectMarriage.com legal team responds to Judge Ware’s ruling
  • 2011-06-13: Comments of Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks
  • 2011-06-12: Will court throw out ruling on Calif. marriage amendment?
  • 2011-04-25: Calif. marriage amendment defenders file motion to throw out district court ruling
  • 2011-04-14: ProtectMarriage.com legal team seeks order for return of Prop. 8 trial recordings
  • 2011-02-17: ADF response to Calif. Supreme Court’s decision to hear 9th Cir. question in marriage amendment case
  • 2011-01-04: The people of California have a right to be defended in Prop. 8 case
  • 2010-12-03: Will 9th Circuit rule to protect marriage?
  • 2010-09-27: Broad support for marriage, initiative process reflected in numerous briefs filed with 9th Circuit
  • 2010-09-20: Defenders of marriage, initiative process in Calif. file opening brief on appeal
  • 2010-08-16: 9th Circuit puts brakes on decision that struck down Calif. marriage amendment
  • 2010-08-12: Defenders of Calif. marriage amendment will appeal judge’s decision on motion for stay
  • 2010-08-09: Selected quotes from the California marriage amendment decision
  • 2010-08-04: Defenders of marriage in Calif. will appeal dangerous federal ruling
  • 2010-06-15: Will the will of Calif. voters on marriage stand?
  • 2010-01-08: Attorneys defending Calif. marriage amendment available to media during trial
  • 2009-07-01: Proposition 8 defenders allowed to intervene against attack on Calif. marriage amendment
  • 2009-05-29: Proposition 8 defenders seek to intervene against Hollywood-backed lawsuit

Commentary:
  • Austin R. Nimocks: Court should have upheld heterosexual marriage (USA Today, 2013-06-28)
  • Alan Sears: The play's the thing (Townhall.com, 2013-04-26)
  • Caleb Dalton: Stepping across the line to support marriage (Townhall.com, 2013-03-28)
  • Austin R. Nimocks: The marriage debate: Let democracy work… (Wall Street Journal, 2013-03-25)
  • Doug Napier: That tail ain't a leg (Townhall.com, 2013-02-19)
  • Austin R. Nimocks: Mother, country and same-sex marriage? (Washington Examiner, 2013-02-16)
  • Kellie Fiedorek: Marriage: A relationship unlike any other (Townhall.com, 2013-02-13)
  • Jim Campbell: Usher in a redefinition of marriage, usher out religious liberty (Townhall.com, 2013-02-12)
  • Ken Connelly: The goodness of marriage (Townhall.com, 2013-02-11)
  • Caleb Dalton: Democratic debate on marriage better than judicial commands (Townhall.com, 2013-02-08)
  • Byron Babione: The opposite of the civil rights movement (Townhall.com, 2013-02-07)
  • Jordan Lorence: Marriage carries a public purpose (USA Today, 2012-12-10)
  • Alan Sears: Judges who redefine marriage will answer to ‘We the People’ (Washington Times, 2012-10-29)
  • Alan Sears: Even the pretense of tolerance is gone (Townhall.com, 2012-06-24)
  • Alan Sears: Marriage is marriage - Period (Townhall.com, 2012-06-07)
  • Austin R. Nimocks: Baltimore Sun in your eyes (Townhall.com, 2012-05-29)
  • Alan Sears: Peering through the smoke of marriage debate (Christian Post, 2012-05-27)

Map: The State of Marriage (click on image for PDF)


Legal documents, related news, and other related resources available in the right panel when this page is viewed at ADFmedia.org.