Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle III standingCase or controversyArticle IIIstandinginjury in factgeneralized grievanceinitiative proponents

Facts

California voters adopted Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Two same-sex couples sued state and local officials responsible for enforcing California's marriage laws, and those officials refused to defend Proposition 8 even though they continued to enforce it. The district court allowed the official proponents of Proposition 8 to intervene, then declared the measure unconstitutional and enjoined the named California officials from enforcing it. The state officials did not appeal, and only the initiative's official proponents sought appellate review.

Issue

Whether the official proponents of California's Proposition 8 had Article III standing to appeal the district court's judgment when the state officials who were ordered not to enforce the law chose not to appeal. More specifically, the question was whether the proponents' role in the initiative process, or California's authorization for them to assert the State's interest, supplied the concrete and particularized injury required for federal standing.

Rule

Article III confines federal courts to actual cases or controversies, which requires a litigant invoking federal jurisdiction to show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Standing must exist at every stage of litigation, including appeal. A generalized interest in the validity or proper enforcement of the law is not enough, and a State may not confer federal standing on private parties who lack a personal, particularized injury merely by authorizing them to defend the State's interests.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Voters in Oregon approve an initiative requiring photo identification at local elections. A federal district court in Portland holds the measure unconstitutional and enjoins the Oregon secretary of state and county election officials from enforcing it. The governor and attorney general decide not to appeal, and only the initiative's four official sponsors file a notice of appeal.

Do the sponsors have Article III standing to pursue the appeal in federal court?

Explanation. Article III standing must exist at every stage, including appeal. Private initiative proponents lack standing to appeal when the judgment does not require them to do or refrain from doing anything and they assert only a generalized interest in vindicating a law's validity. Their prior role in getting the initiative enacted does not create a personal, tangible stake in its enforcement. (Derived from Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013).)