Narrative Opinion Summary
This case concerns a legal dispute about California's Proposition 8, which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples, involving plaintiffs-appellees challenging the law and state officials as defendants. The City and County of San Francisco joined as an intervenor supporting the plaintiffs, while several individuals and groups backing Proposition 8 intervened on the defendants' side. The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where a request was made to have the case reheard en banc. On December 30, 2009, the Ninth Circuit decided against this rehearing, opting instead to continue with the original three-judge panel. This decision reflects the ongoing procedural posture of the case within the appellate system while addressing significant issues of marriage equality under state law. The case is marked by extensive legal representation, indicative of its high-profile nature and the broader implications for marriage rights and state legislation.
Legal Issues Addressed
En Banc Rehearing in Federal Appellate Courtssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether to rehear the case en banc but declined to do so.
Reasoning: On December 30, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a request for the case to be reheard en banc, meaning it would be reviewed by the full court rather than a three-judge panel.
Intervention in Appellate Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Both the City and County of San Francisco and various pro-Proposition 8 groups intervened, reflecting the significant public and governmental interest in the case.
Reasoning: The City and County of San Francisco also intervened as a plaintiff, supporting the appellees. Various individuals and organizations, representing pro-Proposition 8 interests, intervened as defendants-appellants.
Marriage Equality and State Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case challenges the legality of California's Proposition 8, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Reasoning: The case involves Kristin M. Perry and others as plaintiffs-appellees against Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials as defendants, concerning the legality of California's Proposition 8, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples.