Hollingsworth v. Perry

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the official proponents of California’s Proposition 8 lacked Article III standing to appeal a federal district court judgment invalidating the measure. The Court concluded that the proponents had no personal, particularized injury and could not assert California’s generalized interest merely because state law authorized them to defend the initiative. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case was remanded.

Holdings

1. The official proponents lacked Article III standing because they had not suffered a concrete, particularized injury and had no personal stake in defending Proposition 8 distinguishable from the generalized interest of every California citizen.
2. State-law authorization to assert the State's interest in defending an initiative does not itself confer Article III standing on private parties who lack a personal injury.
3. The Court could not reach the merits because petitioners lacked standing to appeal, and the Ninth Circuit therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the official proponents of California Proposition 8 had Article III standing to appeal the district court judgment after the state officials named as defendants declined to appeal.
2. Whether California law authorizing initiative proponents to defend the validity of an enacted initiative could confer federal standing on private parties who suffered no personal injury.
3. Whether the Supreme Court could reach the merits of the Ninth Circuit's holding that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause.