Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

AKA, "I know you are but what am I?"

Story here, includes link to full opinion.

You bastard! I was gonna post that.

Transcript here.The early analyses I've seen strongly suggest Kennedy wants to punt it.

The Supreme Court has held that the the group defending Prop 8 did not have standing to appeal from the District Court decision, thus the Ninth Circuit's opinion is vacated. This means that the District Court decision remains as the law and Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Opinion here.In related news, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Opinion here.

Technically, the Ninth Circuit's ruling is vacated and the appeal is dismissed. It's the District Court's ruling that stands. But you are correct that the final result is that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Well, for what it's worth, I think they were wrong on the standing question. The California Supreme Court, in response to a questions from the Ninth Circuit, specifically said that this group did have the authority under California law to represent the state on challenges to Prop 8. The U.S. Supremes just chose to ignore that.

The state of California has standing to defend any law challenged as unconstitutional. The only question is whether the parties to this case have the authority to represent California in this proceeding. The California Supreme Court said yes. Roberts parsed and nitpicked the opinion until he felt he could get away with ignoring it. I've read the opinion of the California Supreme Court. It's clear that they held that the appellants had the authority under California law to represent the state. The only way to get around that holding is to basically ignore it, which is what Roberts did.You are quite correct that the question of standing in federal courts is for federal courts to decide. But there is no doubt that a state has standing to defend its own laws. Who has authority to represent the state's interests is a question of state law. Roberts ignored state law and misconstrued the federal question.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

You are conflating two very separate questions.Question 1: Who has standing to appeal? Answer: the state of California. This is a question of federal law. No state court can grant to the state standing to appeal in federal courts. This is well-settled law that I agree with. However, it is also well-settled that the state has standing to appeal any decision declaring any portion of its constitution unconstitutional. Do you agree with this?Question 2: Who has the authority to represent the state? This is a question of state law. The state of California, including the state supreme court, is well within its authority to say who, under state law, has the authority to represent the state when its laws or constitution is under attack. This is not a question for federal courts, they are bound by state law determinations about who has that authority. The California Supreme Court specifically held that these litigants had the authority under California law to represent the state of California in these proceedings. Once that happened, the U.S. Supreme Court had no authority to question or decide that issue of state law.Keep the two questions separate. Who has standing (a question of federal law)? The State of California. Who has the authority to represent the state (a question of state law)? The appellants.

No. Federal courts have no authority to construe state law contrary to an authoritative construction by the state. The ultimate authority on what a state's law means is that state. That's why, when this case was in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court certified the question of whether state law allows the appellants to represent the state to the state supreme court. They wanted the most accurate and definitive answer to that question.Now, to be sure, federal courts do interpret state laws all the time. It's quite common for questions of state law to come up in federal courts in a variety of different ways. However, at all times, they must defer to state determinations of the meaning of their laws.If a federal court determines that a state law violates the U.S. Constitution, the state is bound by that decision, because the federal court system is the final arbiter of constitutionality. But it must defer to state courts on the meaning of the laws of the state.

No, that's the DOMA case.The appellants in the Prop 8 case were a group proponents of Proposition 8. They pushed for the passage of the Proposition.

It helps to remember the entire history of gay marriage in California. The state supreme court declared laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional. A group of hate-filled bigots got Proposition 8 on the ballots as a referendum to in effect undo that decision. The Proposition passed.Under this situation, it's easy to see that state authorities might be disinclined to defend the Proposition. In order to ensure that the will of the people as expressed by the passage of Proposition 8 is adequately defended in court, California law gives the proponents of a given Proposition the authority to represent the state in court.They are not representing their interests, they are representing the interests of the state as expressed by the will of the people.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

The people that defended the proposition actually participated as representatives of the state's interests at the district court level. They were defending the proposition because the then governor disagreed with the proposition and refused to defend it.

No. We have the state supreme court holding that California law provides as follows:

quote:

---

In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.

---

52 Cal. 4th 1116, 265 P.3d 1002, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2011)This is THE authoritative construction of California law, proponents have the right to assert the state's interest. The only way to get around this is to ignore it.It is of particular importance to note that, under California law, ballot initiative proponents are not simply "some ordinary citizen." The court explained:

quote:

---

As we discuss more fully below, in the past official proponents of initiative measures in California have uniformly been permitted to participate as parties either as interveners or as real parties in interest in numerous lawsuits in California courts challenging the validity of the initiative measure the proponents sponsored. Such participation has routinely been permitted (1) without any inquiry into or showing that the proponents‘ own property, liberty, or other personal legally protected interests would be specially affected by invalidation of the measure, and (2) whether or not the government officials who ordinarily defend a challenged enactment were also defending the measure in the proceeding. This court, however, has not previously had occasion fully to explain the basis upon which an official initiative proponent‘s ability to participate as a party in such litigation rests.

​

As we shall explain, because the initiative process is specifically intended to enable the people to amend the state Constitution or to enact statutes when current government officials have declined to adopt (and often have publicly opposed) the measure in question, the voters who have successfully adopted an initiative measure may reasonably harbor a legitimate concern that the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law in court may not, in the case of an initiative measure, always undertake such a defense with vigor or with the objectives and interests of those voters paramount in mind. As a consequence, California courts have routinely permitted the official proponents of an initiative to intervene or appear as real parties in interest to defend a challenged voter- approved initiative measure in order ―to guard the people‘s right to exercise initiative power‖ (Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 822 (Building Industry Assn.)) or, in other words, to enable such proponents to assert the people’s, and hence the state’s, interest in defending the validity of the initiative measure. Allowing official proponents to assert the state‘s interest in the validity of the initiative measure in such litigation (along with any public officials who may also be defending the measure) (1) assures voters who supported the measure and enacted it into law that any residual hostility or indifference of current public officials to the substance of the initiative measure will not prevent a full and robust defense of the measure to be mounted in court on the people‘s behalf, and (2) ensures a court faced with the responsibility of reviewing and resolving a legal challenge to an initiative measure that it is aware of and addresses the full range of legal arguments that reasonably may be proffered in the measure‘s defense. In this manner, the official proponents‘ general ability to appear and defend the state‘s interest in the validity of the initiative measure and to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure serves to enhance both the fairness of the judicial process and the appearance of fairness of that process.

---

There are two separate issues here.Nobody doubts that the state of California has standing to pursue this matter. The only question is who has the authority to protect California's interests. States have the inherent authority to delegate who has that authority.Obviously, the state itself cannot do it. The state is an abstract governmental entity. It acts through the actions of people, its agents. In the vast majority of cases, that agent is going to be the attorney general (or someone in his office). In this particular case, since the challenged constitutional amendment was enacted by a referendum, it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the attorney general or governor might not want to defend it if they disagree with it. Thus, it's in the interests of those who voted the initiative into law to have someone who supports it defending it. That's why California law specifically authorizes the proponents to do so.Nobody is arguing that California is trying to get around the standing requirement or eliminate it as suggested by your hypothetical. Instead, they are trying to meet it by designating a certain class of people who have the authority to assert the state's interests.Standing in federal court is and always will be a question of federal law for federal courts to construe. However, the identity of the person or persons that a state designates to represent its interests is a question of state law.