Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2010 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFundamental Right to MarrySexual Orientation DiscriminationFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual Protection

Facts

Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Plaintiffs were two same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses from county officials and were denied solely because of Proposition 8. California provided domestic partnerships to same-sex couples, but the court found domestic partnerships did not carry the same social meaning as marriage. After a full trial, the court found no credible evidence that permitting same-sex couples to marry would harm marriage, children, or any legitimate state interest.

Issue

Whether California's Proposition 8, which bars same-sex couples from marrying while allowing opposite-sex couples to marry, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. Also at issue was whether domestic partnerships satisfy any constitutional obligation to afford same-sex couples the right to marry.

Rule

The fundamental right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender, and a state may not deny that right without satisfying strict scrutiny. Under equal protection, a classification must at least be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest; tradition alone, moral disapproval alone, or a bare desire to disadvantage a group cannot supply that rational basis.

🔒

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.

Ohio amends its constitution to provide that only marriages between one man and one woman will be licensed. Maya Flores and Renee Walsh, a committed couple in Columbus, are denied a marriage license solely because both are women, even though Ohio otherwise allows any two consenting adults to marry without regard to fertility.

Under the district court’s reasoning, which is the strongest constitutional analysis?

Explanation. The opinion held that the fundamental right at issue is the right to marry, not a new right to same-sex marriage. The court examined the history and practice of marriage and concluded its core protects the choice to form a committed household with another consenting adult, while gender restrictions were remnants of outdated role assumptions. Because the law denies that fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies.