What is LawBrain?
It's a living legal community making laws accessible and interactive. Click Here to get Started »

Difference between revisions of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger"

From lawbrain.com

m
Line 1: Line 1:
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a lawsuit filed by two homosexual couples against California government officials and supporters of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative approved by a majority of California voters on November 4, 2008 that modified California's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.  
+
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a lawsuit filed by two homosexual couples against California government officials and supporters of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative approved by a majority of California voters on November 4, 2008 that modified California's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
  
 
The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of California on May 22, 2009 and the trial began on January 11, 2010.  
 
The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of California on May 22, 2009 and the trial began on January 11, 2010.  
  
<br> {{Stub}}<br>  
+
On August 4, 2010, a federal court judge ruled that the voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, violating the [[Due Process of Law|Due Process]] and the [[Equal protection|Equal Protection]] clauses of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]].<ref>http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/08/judge-overturns-californias-proposition-8.html</ref>
 +
 
 +
{{Current case}}<br>
  
 
== Overview  ==
 
== Overview  ==
  
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is notable for several reasons.&nbsp; First, it is a high-profile challenge to a restriction on same-sex marriage under the [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment|14th Amendment]] to the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]].&nbsp; As such, there is a high likelihood that the case could will end up before the United States Supreme Court.&nbsp; This could turn Perry v. Schwarzenegger into a watershed civil rights case.  
+
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is notable for several reasons.&nbsp; First, it is a high-profile challenge to a restriction on same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]]. As such, there is a high likelihood that the case could will end up before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. This could turn Perry v. Schwarzenegger into a watershed [[Civil Rights|civil rights]] case.
  
The plaintiffs in the case are represented by an unlikely pair of well-known attorneys.&nbsp; Theodore "Ted" Olson represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, while David Boies represented Vice President Al Gore in the case.&nbsp; Ted Olson later served as Solicitor General during the Bush presidency, and is a prominent conservative Republican.&nbsp; David Boies on the other hand is a famously liberal Democrat.&nbsp; Same-sex marriage supporters initially questioned Olson's motivations for taking the suit and expressed concern that his intention was to sabotage the lawsuit from the inside.  
+
The plaintiffs in the case are represented by an unlikely pair of well-known attorneys. Theodore "Ted" Olson represented [[George Walker Bush|George W. Bush]] in [[Bush v. Gore]], while David Boies represented Vice President [[Albert Gore Jr.|Al Gore]] in the case.&nbsp; Ted Olson later served as Solicitor General during the Bush presidency, and is a prominent conservative Republican. David Boies on the other hand is a famously liberal Democrat. Same-sex marriage supporters initially questioned Olson's motivations for taking the suit and expressed concern that his intention was to sabotage the lawsuit from the inside.
  
 
== Legal Developments  ==
 
== Legal Developments  ==
  
Perry v. Schwarzenegger reignited the long-running debate on cameras inside of federal courtrooms.&nbsp; Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding judge in the case, initially ruled that video recordings of the proceedings could appear on YouTube.&nbsp; Supporters of Prop 8 filed an emergency appeal with the [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]], arguing that their witnesses would be subject to harassment based on their views and positions in the case.&nbsp; The [[Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting broadcasts of the trial on January 11, 2009.&nbsp; On January 13, 2009 the [[Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] split along ideological lines and issued a majority opinion upholding the temporary restraining order.<br>  
+
Perry v. Schwarzenegger reignited the long-running debate on cameras inside of federal courtrooms.&nbsp; Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding judge in the case, initially ruled that video recordings of the proceedings could appear on YouTube.&nbsp; Supporters of Prop 8 filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, arguing that their witnesses would be subject to harassment based on their views and positions in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a [[Temporary Restraining Order|temporary restraining order]] prohibiting broadcasts of the trial on January 11, 2009.<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14165465</ref> On January 13, 2009 the [[Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] split along ideological lines and issued a majority opinion upholding the temporary restraining order.<br>
  
Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker issued a 136-page opinion overturning Proposition 8 as a violation of the [[Due Process Clause|Due Process Clause]] and [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]]. The court held that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally burdens the fundamental right to marry and creates as irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.  
+
On August 4, 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker issued a 136-page opinion<ref>http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/08/judge-overturns-californias-proposition-8.html</ref> overturning Proposition 8 as a violation of the [[Due Process Clause|Due Process Clause]] and [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]]. The court held that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally burdens the fundamental right to marry and creates as irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.
  
<br>  
+
<br>
  
 
== References  ==
 
== References  ==
  
<references />  
+
<references />
  
 
== External Links  ==
 
== External Links  ==
  
*[http://www.google.com add external link]  
+
* [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&type=gaylesbian Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage (SF Gate)]
*[http://www.yahoo.com add external link]  
+
* [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOiMLmsztmiGlNvjNLQLw4N41h1QD9HCU44G5 Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban (AP)]
*[http://www.bing.com add external link]
+
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California (New York Times]
  
 
== Related Resources on FindLaw  ==
 
== Related Resources on FindLaw  ==
  
*[http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/08/judge-overturns-californias-proposition-8.html Judge Overturns California's Proposition 8]
+
* [http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/08/judge-overturns-californias-proposition-8.html Judge Overturns California's Proposition 8]
 +
 
 +
 
  
<br>  
+
<br>
  
 
== Related Blogs on FindLaw  ==
 
== Related Blogs on FindLaw  ==
  
<br> <br> <rss>http://search.yahooapis.com/WebSearchService/rss/webSearch.xml?appid=yahoosearchwebrss&query=perry+schwarzenegger%20site:blogs.findlaw.com</rss> <br> <!-- Begin Yahoo Web Services HTML Attribution Snippet -->&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [http://www.developer.yahoo.com Web Services by Yahoo!] <!-- End Yahoo Web Services HTML Attribution Snippet -->  
+
<rss>http://search.yahooapis.com/WebSearchService/rss/webSearch.xml?appid=yahoosearchwebrss&query=perry+schwarzenegger%20site:blogs.findlaw.com|max=5</rss> <br> <!-- Begin Yahoo Web Services HTML Attribution Snippet -->&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [http://www.developer.yahoo.com Web Services by Yahoo!] <!-- End Yahoo Web Services HTML Attribution Snippet -->
  
 
== See Also  ==
 
== See Also  ==
  
*[[Gay Marriage Legislation]]  
+
* [[Gay Marriage Legislation]]
*[[LawBrain article]]  
+
* [[Due Process of Law]]
*[[LawBrain article]]
+
* [[Equal protection|Equal Protection]]
 +
* [[Constitution of the United States]]
 +
* [[Domestic Partnership Law]]
 +
* [[Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 ]]
  
[[Category:Gay_and_Lesbian_Rights]] [[Category:Family_Law]] [[Category:Case]]
+
[[Category:Family Law]]
 +
[[Category:Case]]
 +
[[Category:Constitutional Law]]
 +
[[Category:Gay marriage]]
 +
[[Category:Fourteenth Amendment]]

Revision as of 16:10, 4 August 2010

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a lawsuit filed by two homosexual couples against California government officials and supporters of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative approved by a majority of California voters on November 4, 2008 that modified California's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of California on May 22, 2009 and the trial began on January 11, 2010.

On August 4, 2010, a federal court judge ruled that the voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, violating the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[1]


Contents

Overview

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is notable for several reasons.  First, it is a high-profile challenge to a restriction on same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As such, there is a high likelihood that the case could will end up before the United States Supreme Court. This could turn Perry v. Schwarzenegger into a watershed civil rights case.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by an unlikely pair of well-known attorneys. Theodore "Ted" Olson represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, while David Boies represented Vice President Al Gore in the case.  Ted Olson later served as Solicitor General during the Bush presidency, and is a prominent conservative Republican. David Boies on the other hand is a famously liberal Democrat. Same-sex marriage supporters initially questioned Olson's motivations for taking the suit and expressed concern that his intention was to sabotage the lawsuit from the inside.

Legal Developments

Perry v. Schwarzenegger reignited the long-running debate on cameras inside of federal courtrooms.  Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding judge in the case, initially ruled that video recordings of the proceedings could appear on YouTube.  Supporters of Prop 8 filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, arguing that their witnesses would be subject to harassment based on their views and positions in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting broadcasts of the trial on January 11, 2009.[2] On January 13, 2009 the Supreme Court split along ideological lines and issued a majority opinion upholding the temporary restraining order.

On August 4, 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker issued a 136-page opinion[3] overturning Proposition 8 as a violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The court held that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally burdens the fundamental right to marry and creates as irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.


References

  1. http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/08/judge-overturns-californias-proposition-8.html
  2. http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14165465
  3. http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/08/judge-overturns-californias-proposition-8.html

External Links

Related Resources on FindLaw



Related Blogs on FindLaw

Failed to load RSS feed from http://search.yahooapis.com/WebSearchService/rss/webSearch.xml?appid=yahoosearchwebrss&query=perry+schwarzenegger%20site:blogs.findlaw.com!

                                                                            Web Services by Yahoo!

See Also

Contributors

FindLaw John, FindLaw Michelle, FindLaw Nira, FindLaw Sarah, FindLaw Support