A "[Non]essential Limit on Our Power": Standing Doctrine and Judicial Restraint in Hollingsworth V. Perry

Article III, Section 2 of United States Constitution grants federal courts broad jurisdiction to consider Cases and Controversies. (1) The Supreme Court has established that there is no Case or Controversy--and thus no federal court jurisdiction-if a plaintiff has not an in fact that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. (2) This doctrine, known as standing, plays a vital role in ensuring that judiciary acts within its granted powers. (3) Despite doctrine's importance, scholars have long deplored its inconsistent application by Supreme Court, (4) and Court itself has admitted that the concept of 'Art. III standing' has not been defined with complete consistency ... by this Court.... (5) Last term, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, (6) Supreme Court found that ballot initiative proponents who intervened to defend their initiative--Proposition 8--against a constitutional challenge had no standing to appeal in federal court because they had not suffered a concrete and particularized and they were not authorized to represent California's interests. (7) Citing judicial restraint as rationale behind limitations on standing, Court vacated decision of Ninth Circuit and remanded with instructions to dismiss case for a lack of standing. (8) On its face, judicial restraint argument made by Court was persuasive. The Court emphasized public nature of debate over same-sex marriage and how standing doctrine prevented Court from legislating by entering that debate. (9) Upon closer inspection, however, Hollingsworth decision did not promote judicial restraint in least. Instead, Court's inaction amounted to an abdication of its constitutionally granted power to decide Cases and Controversies. I. THE FACTS In 2008, in 111 re Marriage Cases, (10) California Supreme Court held that California Constitution allowed same-sex couples to marry. (11) Less than six months later, California voters passed ballot initiative known as that amended Constitution of State of California to confine marriage to heterosexual couples. (12) Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo-two same-sex couples wanting to marry-brought suit against State of California in a federal district court. (13) The plaintiffs argued that Proposition 8 violated Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution by forbidding marriage between two people of same sex. (14) When Attorney General of California conceded case, district court allowed official ballot initiative proponents to intervene. (15) The district court ruled for plaintiffs and enjoined state officials from enforcing Proposition 8. (16) After State of California chose not to appeal, ballot initiative proponents attempted to appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (17) The Ninth Circuit certified a question to California Supreme Court, asking whether intervenors had authority to argue on behalf of state's interest in a law when its officials declined to do so. (18) The California Supreme Court answered that intervenors could assert people's, and hence state's, interest in defending validity of initiative measure. (19) After receiving this answer, Ninth Circuit concluded that intervenors had standing to appeal case. The Ninth Circuit proceeded to consider merits of case and affirmed district court's holding. (20) The intervenors then petitioned United States Supreme Court. (21) II. THE MAJORITY OPINION The Supreme Court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss. (22) Writing for majority, Chief Justice Roberts found that intervenors, who had petitioned Court, lacked a concrete and particularized injury and thus lacked standing to appeal. …