Petition for Writ of Certiorari in This Court

No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Petitioners, v. KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ANDREW P. PUGNO CHARLES J. COOPER LAW OFFICES OF Counsel of Record ANDREW P. PUGNO DAVID H. THOMPSON 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR. Folsom, California 95630 PETER A. PATTERSON COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC DAVID AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS 1523 New Hampshire JAMES A. CAMPBELL Avenue, NW ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM Washington, D.C. 20036 801 G Street, NW, Suite 509 Tel: (202) 220-9600 Washington, D.C. 20001 Email: ccooper@ cooperkirk.com Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of Cali- fornia from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of Cali- fornia Renewal (“ProtectMarriage.com”) intervened as defendants in the district court and were the appellants in the court below. Respondents, plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo and intervening plaintiff City and County of San Francis- co, were the appellees below. Official-capacity defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., as Governor of California, Kamala D. Harris, as Attorney General of California, Ron Chapman, as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics, Linette Scott, as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health, Patrick O’Connell, as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda, and Dean C. Logan, as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, and intervening defendant Hak-Shing 1 William Tam were not parties to the appeal below. 1 The Attorney General of California, although not a party to the appeal, was on the service list and filed documents in the court below and filed an amicus brief addressing the question certi- fied to the California Supreme Court. See Dkt. Entries 8, 311, 352. The court below did not, however, certify to the Attorney Gen- eral of California that the constitutionality of a law of the State of California was drawn into question. See 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No corporations are parties, and there are no parent companies or publicly held companies owning any corporation’s stock. Petitioner ProtectMarriage. com is a primarily formed ballot committee under California law. See CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 82013 & 82047.5. Its “sponsor” under California law is Cali- fornia Renewal, a California nonprofit corporation, recognized as a public welfare organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ..... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. vi OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 13 I. The Question Presented Is Exceedingly Important ................................................... 13 II. The Decision Below Conflicts with Craw- ford v. Board of Education ........................ 15 III. The Decision Below Fundamentally Mis- applies Romer v. Evans and Conflicts with the Decisions of Other Appellate Courts ..... 17 IV. The Decision Below Conflicts with This Court’s Decision in Baker v. Nelson and with Uniform Appellate Authority Up- holding State Marriage Laws .................... 23 V. The Ninth Circuit’s Holding That Propo- sition 8 Serves No Legitimate Governmen- tal Purpose Conflicts with the Decisions of This and Other Appellate Courts .......... 25 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page A. The Traditional Definition of Marriage Furthers Society’s Vital Interest in Responsible Procreation and Child- rearing ................................................. 26 B. Proposition 8 Serves California’s Legit- imate Interest in Proceeding Cau- tiously When Considering Redefining the Institution of Marriage ................. 35 C. The Purpose of Proposition 8 Is Not To “Dishonor” Gays and Lesbians ....... 37 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 39 INDEX TO APPENDIX Opinion, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), filed Feb. 7, 2012 ................................... 1a Opinion, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), filed Aug. 4, 2010 ............. 137a Opinion, Perry v. Brown, 52 Cal. 4th 1116 (Cal. 2011), filed Nov. 17, 2011 .................................... 318a Order, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), filed Jan. 4, 2011 ....................... 413a Order, Perry v. Brown, 681 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2012), filed Jun. 5, 2012 ...................................... 441a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (plurality) ...................................................... 30 Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) ............... 3, 23, 24 Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) .... 23, 24 Board of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) ........................................................ 30 Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987) ..................... 33 Central State Univ. v. American Ass’n Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999) .............................. 33 Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) .......................................... passim City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) .................................................. 30, 31 City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) ....................................................................... 33 Crawford v. Board of Educ., 458 U.S. 527 (1982) .... passim De Burgh v. De Burgh, 250 P.2d 598 (Cal. 1952) ....... 28 Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995) .................................................................. 24, 29 District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) .................................................................... 5 Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1995) ....................... 31, 37 Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) ......... 31 In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) ..... 3, 8, 32 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010) .............................. 17, 24, 29 Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) ....... 30, 31, 32 Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) .......... 24 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ................. 7, 39 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ......................... 28 Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U.S. 360 (1988) ...... 33 Massachusetts v. United Sates Dep’t of HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) .................................... 7, 24 Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) ........................ 13 Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) .................................................................. 30, 31 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) ......................................................................... 3 Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) ............................ 31 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ................. passim Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974) .................................................................. 24, 29 Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) ............................ 13 Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) ....................... 17, 24, 29, 30 Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) ..... 21, 22, 37 Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U.S. 68 (1976) .................... 23 United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) ................................................................ 37 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ........... 18 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) .......... 3 Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) ....... 13 Ysura v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) ....................................................................... 33 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 .............................. passim 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ....................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................... 8 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) ....................................................... 1 CAL. CONST. art. I, § 7.5 ...............................................

Load more