DOCSLIB.ORG

No. 20-16375 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
No. 20-16375 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS (1 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 1 of 32 No. 20-16375 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _________________________ KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, KQED, INC., Intervenor-Appellee, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California, et al., Defendants, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Appeal From United States District Court For The Northern District Of California Case No. 3:09-cv-02292-JW (WHO) (Honorable William H. Orrick) OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. THEODORE B. OLSON CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT MATTHEW D. MCGILL THEANE EVANGELIS AMIR C. TAYRANI ABBEY J. HUDSON ANDREW WILHELM JILLIAN N. LONDON GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 333 South Grand Avenue Washington, D.C. 20036 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (202) 955-8500 (213) 229-7000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo [Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover] (2 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 2 of 32 ETHAN DETTMER DAVID BOIES ELIZABETH A. DOOLEY BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 Main Street 555 Mission Street Armonk, NY 10504 San Francisco, CA 94105 (917) 749-8200 (415) 393-8200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo (3 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 3 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 4 I. The Proposition 8 Trial ......................................................................... 4 II. Chief Judge Walker Records The Trial, Considers It When Reaching His Decision, And Places The Video Recording Into The Record Under Seal ......................................................................... 5 III. Initial Motions Regarding Sealing ........................................................ 6 IV. Present Sealing Motions ........................................................................ 7 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 9 I. This Court Should Deny The Stay ........................................................ 9 A. Proponents Are Unlikely To Succeed On The Merits .............. 10 1. Local Rule 79-5 Presumptively Requires Unsealing After Ten Years And Proponents Have Offered No Sufficient Reason To Maintain The Seal ........................................................... 10 2. The Right Of Public Access Requires Unsealing ........................................................................ 14 B. Proponents Cannot Show Irreparable Injury ............................ 17 C. The Remaining Equitable Factors Also Disfavor A Stay ......... 19 II. If The Court Grants A Stay, It Should Expedite This Appeal ............ 21 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 21 i (4 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 4 of 32 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases In re Adamson Apparel, Inc., 785 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 12 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 10 Amberhill Props. v. City of Berkeley, 814 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 12 Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 18 Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 15 Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 10, 19 Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 20 Folex Golf Indus., Inc. v. O-TA Precision Indus. Co., 700 F. App’x 738 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 11 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 1107 (2010) ............................................................................................ 5 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) ........................................................................................ 5, 17 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) .............................................................................................. 5 Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 20 ii (5 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 5 of 32 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 14, 15 Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 17 Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 19 Li v. A Perfect Franchise, Inc., 2011 WL 2293221 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2011) ...................................................... 19 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................ 14 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................................................................ 9, 10 Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................2, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20 Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 4 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 4527349 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2011) ..................................................... 6 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................... 8, 13, 15 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................. 4, 6 Qualls ex rel. Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 13 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) ............................................................................................ 16 Scripps-Howard Radio v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4 (1942) .......................................................................................... 18, 19 iii (6 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 6 of 32 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 14 United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 11 United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 14, 15 United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 15 United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1979) .............................................................................. 13 Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ............................................................................ 18 Other Authorities Commentary, N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(a)-(b) ...................................................... 11 Ninth Circuit Office of the Clerk Frequently Asked Questions (Dec. 2019), https://bit.ly/3dGNn6H ............................................................................ 20 Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-17255), https://bit.ly/35toPvJ ....................................................................................... 7, 12 Rules N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5 ....................................................................................... 11 N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(b) ................................................................................... 16 N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(g) ................................................................................... 11 iv (7 of 229) Case: 20-16375, 07/27/2020, ID: 11767449, DktEntry: 8-1, Page 7 of 32 INTRODUCTION More than a decade ago, the Northern District of California conducted a historic civil rights trial on an issue of great public interest and importance—whether California’s Proposition 8, which stripped gay and lesbian Californians of the right to marry, violated the United States Constitution. The trial showcased each side’s best arguments and evidence for and against marriage equality, laying bare the prejudice and misconceptions that had, for nearly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prop 8 Trial Video 9Th Circuit Ruling Presskit
    CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MATT DORSEY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (415) 554-4662 Herrera expresses disappointment with ruling on Prop 8 trial video ‘Public trial records—including video records—should serve to inform our national debates, not be withheld from them,’ Herrera says SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 2, 2012)—A federal appeals court today ruled against publicly releasing the video record of a 2010 U.S. District Court trial challenging the validity of Proposition 8, the narrowly passed state constitutional amendment that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. The decision is only one aspect in the broader legal battle currently before a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel. No ruling has yet been issued on the merits of the appeal of former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s Aug. 4, 2010 holding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. In response to the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision to withhold the video record of the trial, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement: “A free society deserves maximum transparency in the conduct of the public’s business to the full extent our technology allows, and that’s why I’m disappointed with today’s decision. The issue of marriage equality continues to be one of national importance, as we’re seeing now in the State of Washington. Public trial records—including video records—should serve to inform our national debates, not be withheld from them.” Herrera’s brief in the dispute argued against giving credence to Prop 8 proponents’ continuing narrative in the case to justify withholding the video record, “the myth that they, rather than gay men and lesbians whose equal citizenship they have continued to deny, are the victims here; that they or their witnesses are at risk of persecution or harassment because of their speech or religious beliefs….” The City intervened in the federal challenge to Prop 8 alongside the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed the case on behalf of two California couples in May 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaughn Walker FEDERAL JUDGE B
    VAUGHN WALKER FEDERAL JUDGE b. 1944 “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” As a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, Vaughn Walker ruled as unconstitutional California’s Prop 8 prohibition of same sex-marriage. Vaughn Walker Born in Watseka, Illinois, Walker attended the University of Michigan and was a is a federal judge Woodrow Wilson Fellow in economics at the University of California at Berkeley. He attended Stanford Law School and practiced law in San Francisco. who ruled that In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated Walker for a judgeship. The same-sex marriage is a nomination was stalled due to Walker’s previous representation of the U.S. Olympic constitutional right. Committee in a lawsuit that disallowed the use of the title “Gay Olympics.” House Democrats, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, accused him of being insensitive to the LGBT community. In 1989 when President George H. W. Bush renominated Walker for a seat on the federal district court, Walker was confirmed unanimously. He presided over numerous important cases, including drug legalization, NSA surveillance without a warrant, antitrust, mergers and copyright infringement. In 2010 Walker presided over Hollingsworth v. Perry, the landmark case that challenged California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. His decision influenced subsequent state and federal marriage equality cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. After retiring from the bench in 2011, Walker came out and acknowledged his decade-long same-sex relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Direct Democracy
    noyes 00 fmt autoF2 1/9/14 9:11 AM Page iii The Law of Direct Democracy Henry S. Noyes Professor of Law Fowler School of Law Chapman University Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina noyes 00 fmt autoF2 1/9/14 9:11 AM Page iv Copyright © 2014 Henry S. Noyes All Rights Reserved ISBN 978-1-61163-276-7 LCCN 2013952136 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America noyes 00 fmt autoF2 1/9/14 9:11 AM Page v For Shana, Charlie and Edie. And Nini and Dampah. noyes 00 fmt autoF2 1/9/14 9:11 AM Page vi noyes 00 fmt autoF2 1/9/14 9:11 AM Page vii Contents List of Tables xiii Table of Cases xv Preface xxv Editorial Note xxvii Introduction xxix The Early History of Same- Sex Marriage in California xxx Proposition 22: The Statutory Initiative xxx San Francisco Rejects Proposition 22 xxxi The Legislature and the Governor Respond xxxii In Re Marriage Cases xxxii Proposition 8: The People Respond to the Courts xxxv Strauss v. Horton xxxvi Same- Sex Marriage Supporters Make It a Federal Case xl Perry v. Schwarzenegger xl An Issue of Standing: Who Will Defend Prop 8? xlii Perry v. Brown xliii On to the U.S. Supreme Court xlv Perry v. Brown xlv Hollingsworth v. Perry xlvii The Same- Sex Marriage Battle — California and Beyond l Chapter One · A Republican Form of Government 3 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Granting Preliminary Approval Sutter 20210309
    66406520 Mar 09 2021 04:15PM 1 2020 order re appointment ofthe monitor, Plaintiffs' March 1, 2021 Renewed Motion for 2 Preliminary Approval, and having considered the oral argument presented to the Court on August 3 12, 2020, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. The plan ofnotice presented in the Declaration ofCameron R. Azari in support of 5 Plaintiffs' Motion is approved. The plan for distributing the notice meets the 6 requirements ofdue process and is the best notice practicable under the 7 circumstances. The form ofnotice previously attached as Appendix 1 to Plaintiffs' 8 August 13 supplemental submission in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for 9 preliminary approval ofsettlement (re-attached hereto as Exhibit 1) and the claim 10 form in the form attached as Appendix 3 to Plaintiffs' August 13 submission (re­ 11 attached hereto as Exhibit 2) are approved. The notice and claim form shall be 12 disseminated to the class in accordance with the plan ofnotice. 13 2. The proposed settlement is within the range for which final approval may be granted, 14 such that notice should be given to the class. The proposed settlement is comprised of 15 the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Appendix 1 to the Memorandum of 16 Points and Authorities filed on pecember 19, 2019, as modified by the Addendum to 17 the Settlement Agreement ("Addendum"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The 18 settlement and Proposed Final Judgment between Plaintiffs and Sutter is 19 preliminarily approved. Ms. Dionne Lomax is appointed to be the Monitor.1 20 21 1 On March 2, 2021, FedArb sent a letter to the Court expressing its interest in serving as monitor in this litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition 8 (California) the Signs at This Rally in by Claude J
    Proposition 8 (California) The signs at this rally in by Claude J. Summers favor of Proposition 8 held on October 26, 2008 in Fresno, Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. California reflect the Entry Copyright © 2010 glbtq, Inc. religious roots of the Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com proposition's support. Photograph by Richard Johnstone. Image Proposition 8, also known as the California Marriage Protection Act, was the ballot appears under the proposition that amended the California state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Creative Commons The passage of Proposition 8 sparked large demonstrations throughout California and Attribution ShareAlike inspired new grassroots activism on behalf of gay rights. After prolonged litigation in 2.0 license. both state and federal court, it was finally struck down on June 26, 2013. Passed on November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 added a new provision to the California constitution that declared that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This wording is the same as Proposition 22, which is sometimes known as the Knight Initiative because it was proposed by homophobic state senator William "Pete" Knight. Proposition 22 was adopted in 2000 as a simple law and was invalidated by the 2008 California Supreme Court's ruling in In re Marriages, which legalized same-sex marriage in California. In response to that ruling, proponents of "traditional" marriage launched a petition drive to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would end same-sex marriage in the state. Background On February 12, 2004, San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
    [Show full text]
  • Motions of Dow Jones & Co., 142 F.3D 496 (D.C
    (1 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 1 of 29 NO. 20-16375 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, KQED, INC., Intervenor-Appellee, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor, et al., Defendants-Appellees, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. and PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda, et al., Defendants. Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 WHO (Honorable William Orrick) INTERVENORS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL *RELIEF NEEDED BY AUGUST 12, 2020* Charles J. Cooper David H. Thompson Peter A. Patterson John D. Ohlendorf COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants (2 of 198) Case: 20-16375, 07/16/2020, ID: 11755480, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 10
    [Show full text]
  • Will We Finally See Courtroom Debate? Arthur S
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Other Publications 2011 Will We Finally See Courtroom Debate? Arthur S. Leonard New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Leonard, Arthur S., "Will We Finally See Courtroom Debate?" (2011). Other Publications. 322. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs/322 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. 5/23/2018 Will We Finally See Courtroom Debate? - Gay City News | Gay City News Will We Finally See Courtroom Debate? Added by Gay City News on September 28, 2011. Share This Post Saved under News, Legal, National, NYC Prop 8 trial recording may go public — but not on September 30 BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD | More than a year after now-retired federal District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Chief Judge James Ware, who assumed jurisdiction over the case, granted a motion by the plaintiffs to unseal the video recording of the trial. “Foremost among the aspects of the federal judicial system that foster public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process are public access to trials and public access to the record of judicial proceedings,” Ware wrote, in a September 19 ruling. “Consequently, once an item is placed in the record of judicial proceedings, there must be compelling reasons for keeping that item secret.” Walker made the recording for his own use after the US Supreme Court ruled, on the eve of the trial, that it could not be broadcast live or recorded for delayed broadcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Legal History
    WESTERN LEGAL HISTORY THE JOURNAL OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY COMMEMORATING THE CENTENNIAL OF THE JAMES R. BROWNING UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1905-2005 VOLUME 18, NUMBERS 1 & 2 2005 Western Legal History is published semiannually, in spring and fall, by the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society, 125 S. Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California 91105, (626) 795-0266/fax (626) 229-7476. The journal explores, analyzes, and presents the history of law, the legal profession, and the courts- particularly the federal courts-in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Legal History is sent to members of the NJCHS as well as members of affiliated legal historical societies in the Ninth Circuit. Membership is open to all. Membership dues (individuals and institutions): Patron, $1,000 or more; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499; Sustaining, $100- $249; Advocate, $50-$99; Subscribing (nonmembers of the bench and bar, lawyers in practice fewer than five years, libraries, and academic institutions), $25-$49. Membership dues (law firms and corporations): Founder, $3,000 or more; Patron, $1,000-$2,999; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499. For information regarding membership, back issues of Western Legal History, and other society publications and programs, please write or telephone the editor. POSTMASTER: Please send change of address to: Editor Western Legal History 125 S. Grand Avenue Pasadena, California 91105 Western Legal History disclaims responsibility for statements made by authors and for accuracy of endnotes. Copyright 02005, Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society ISSN 0896-2189 The Editorial Board welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, books for review, and recommendations for the journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, but Not Because the Ninth Circuit Said So
    NOTE Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, But Not Because the Ninth Circuit Said So: The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Support a Legal Distinction Between Denying the Right to Same-Sex Marriage and Not Providing It in the First Place Nathan Rouse* I. INTRODUCTION In 2008, advocates for marriage equality1 lost a hard-fought and contentious campaign battle in California: voters approved Proposition 8 and eliminated the right to same-sex marriage.2 The battle, however, had only begun. Two same-sex couples whose plans to marry had been can- celled by the passage of Proposition 8 sued the state in federal district court, maintaining that Proposition 8 violates the Constitution.3 They won. The district court issued a landmark decision in which the court broadly held that banning same-sex marriage violates both the Equal Pro- * J.D. Candidate, Seattle University School of Law, 2013; B.A., Comparative Literature, Colorado College, 2006. Thanks to Carrie Hobbs, Laura Turczanski, Daniel Lee, and Jamie Corning. And, of course, to Alex. 1. This Note will use the terms “marriage equality” and “same-sex marriage.” Although the term “gay marriage” is widely used, it is noninclusive. For example, the term does not include bi- sexual or transgendered persons. See Patrick Busch, Is Same-Sex Marriage A Threat to Traditional Marriages?: How Courts Struggle with the Question, 10 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 143, 143 n.1 (2011). But see Monte Neil Stewart, Genderless Marriage, Institutional Realities, and Judicial Elision, 1 DUKE J. CONST. L. & PUB. POL’Y 1, 5 n.6 (2006) (choosing the term “genderless mar- riage” because “same-sex marriage” suggests something different from opposite-sex marriages).
    [Show full text]
  • Protectmarriage.Com California Supreme Court Petition Presskit
    City Attorney Dennis Herrera News Release For Immediate Release: July 12, 2013 Contact: Gabriel Zitrin (415) 554‐4653 Herrera will fight Prop 8 proponents’ ‘desperate bid’ to halt same‐sex marriages After ‘ProtectMarriage.com’ files motion in state Supreme Court to halt same‐sex marriages with flawed technical reasoning, S.F. City Attorney readies opposition SAN FRANCISCO (July 13, 2013)—San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera will promptly oppose a move by the proponents of Proposition 8 that seeks to block equal marriage rights for same‐sex couples in California. The motion filed by ProtectMarriage.com in the state Supreme Court this morning names all California counties—including San Francisco—as defendants, and contends that Gov. Jerry Brown did not have the authority to direct county officials to stop enforcing Prop 8 because the measure had not been deemed unconstitutional by an appellate court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling, holding that the measure’s sponsors lacked standing to appeal, left intact a U.S. District Court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. The petition filed with the state high court today is Hollingsworth v. O’Connell. “This motion is a desperate obstruction tactic used in the vain hope of pursuing an unconstitutional agenda,” said Herrera. “The opponents of the freedom to marry have chosen to ignore the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and the well‐settled California marriage case of Lockyer v. San Francisco, which they themselves celebrated at the time. Their motion has essentially no chance to succeed. The most basic concepts of American law tell us that a state court cannot and will not overrule the federal judiciary.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 10-16696 (Circuit Judges Stephen
    Case: 10-16696 04/13/2011 Page: 1 of 29 ID: 7715321 DktEntry: 338-1 NO. 10-16696 ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 2010 (CIRCUIT JUDGES STEPHEN REINHARDT, MICHAEL HAWKINS, & N.R. SMITH) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., et al., Defendants, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants. On Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 JW (Honorable James Ware) APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RETURN OF TRIAL RECORDINGS Andrew P. Pugno Charles J. Cooper LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO David H. Thompson 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Folsom, California 95630 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC (916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 Fax 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Brian W. Raum (202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax James A. Campbell ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 (480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com Case: 10-16696 04/13/2011 Page: 2 of 29 ID: 7715321 DktEntry: 338-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 STATEMENT............................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Hollingsworth V. Perry
    Hollingsworth v. Perry Same-Sex Marriage, the Courts, and Social Reform By: Endre Isachsen Flatmo A thesis presented to: The Department of Literature, Area Studies, and European Languages North American Area Studies Faculty of Humanities In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree Supervisor: Deborah Lynn Kitchen-Døderlein UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Spring 2014 II Hollingsworth v. Perry Same-Sex Marriage, the Courts, and Social Reform By: Endre Isachsen Flatmo III © Endre Isachsen Flatmo 2014 Hollingsworth v. Perry: Same-Sex Marriage, the Courts and Social Reform Endre Isachsen Flatmo http://www.duo.uio.no/ Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo IV Abstract The history of same-sex marriage litigation has often been a story of courts making decisions in opposition to public opinion, which as a result has created powerful political backlash. George N. Rosenberg has argued that when courts try to create social reform without significant political and public support, they will create political backlash against the very issue they have ruled in favor of. William N. Eskridge proposes a different theory and concludes that courts have significantly advanced the cause of same-sex marriage by reversing the “burden of inertia,” and moving the issue from a disgust- and identity-based discussion into what he calls “normal politics.” Recent polls show a growing majority of Americans in support of same-sex marriage, and in 2013 the number of states that recognizes same-sex marriage went from nine to seventeen. Additionally, 2013 was the year the Supreme Court struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v.
    [Show full text]