## Facts

- California voters adopted Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
- Two same-sex couples sued California officials responsible for enforcing marriage laws, alleging Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- State officials declined to defend Proposition 8 in federal court.
- The district court allowed the initiative’s official proponents to intervene, held Proposition 8 unconstitutional, and enjoined state officials from enforcing it.
- Only the proponents pursued an appeal after state officials declined to appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit, relying on a California Supreme Court answer that proponents were authorized under state law to defend initiatives when officials refuse, found standing and affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed only whether the proponents had Article III standing to appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether official proponents of a state ballot initiative have Article III standing to appeal a federal judgment invalidating the initiative when state officials decline to appeal.
2. Whether state-law authorization to defend an initiative can satisfy federal standing requirements absent a personal, concrete injury.

## Decision

- The Court held, 5–4, that the proponents lacked Article III standing to appeal the district court’s judgment.
- The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court did not reach the merits of whether Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The practical effect was that the district court’s injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 remained operative.

## Legal Principles

- Article III limits federal courts to resolving actual “Cases” and “Controversies,” requiring a litigant to show a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent, traceable to the challenged conduct, and redressable by judicial relief.
- Standing must persist at all stages of review, including on appeal; permission to intervene does not itself supply Article III standing to appeal.
- A desire to defend the validity of a law, without being subject to the challenged judgment or otherwise suffering personal injury, is a generalized grievance insufficient for standing.
- State law cannot create Article III standing in federal court by authorizing private parties to represent the State’s interests when they lack their own concrete injury.
- Initiative proponents are not treated as state agents for standing purposes when they are not accountable to the State and control their litigation decisions independently.

## Conclusion

The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing because the initiative proponents suffered no personal, concrete injury from the district court’s injunction and could not rely on state-law authority to litigate the State’s interests in federal court.


Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013)