Facts of theCase: The respondents that constituted of gay and lesbian coupledwent ahead to sue the state since they claimed that Proposition 8infringed their Fourteen Amendment right. In this case, Proposition 8asserted that the marriage legally recognized in California was theone between a man and a woman. In the process, homosexuals could notget marriage licenses, and that is why the two couples decided tooppose the law. Later, the district court concluded that Proposition8 violated the rights of the gays in the state and the Court ofAppeals also agreed with them.
Dothe petitioners possess standing that will assist them to argue thecase?
Issues: UnderArticle III of the US Constitution, do the petitioners maintain astanding to help them in arguing the case?
Rule: Article III of the US Constitution asserts thatplaintiffs are expected to suffer any injury before they take a suitto the federal court.
Analysis: Itwas clear that they did not have the standing to present their case.In particular, the Supreme Court asserts that the federal courts aresupposed to deal with cases that have “actual controversy.”Besides that, the party complaining is expected to have suffered asignificant injury that the court will have to redress. However, inthis scenario, the petitioners did not experience any particularizedinjury that raises concerns and show the need for the courtintervention. Instead, they only had a generalized grievance thatwanted to protect Proposition 8 since they thought that the court wasinterfering with its working. To some extent, it was a ballotinitiative and not a stature, and they wanted the court to respectthe demands of the citizens. In reality, Article III highlights thata person will have a standing in a case when he or she has sufferedharm significantly.
The idea of stopping the state from appealing the case was also lesslikely. In fact, the petitioners as the litigants have to prioritizetheir rights and they are unable to request relief by seeking theintervention of another third party. The way that the petitionerslacked the standing to appeal the case to the Court of Appeals, itwas clear that the same court did not possess the jurisdiction todecide the final ruling. The petitioners were also unable to limitthe default judgment by the district court to the four plaintiffsthat had presented the case. In reality, their argument showed thatother homosexual would also suffer the same consequences if thetribunal does not redress the injuries that the four had undergone inthe long-run.
The circumstances were in contrast to the rule that expected a personto suffer significant injury before they presented their case. Inthis case, the way that it was a ballot initiative was a disadvantageto the proponents. Instead, if they were public officials, then itcould have been easier to determine that they have closerrelationship with the case. For instance, they might act on behalf ofthe state in case of litigation.
Conclusion:Clearly, the petitioners did not suffer some injury or even asignificant harm and that proves that they do not have any directstake in the final ruling. Hence, the two couples lack the standingto appeal the case and influence the final decision.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 – Supreme Court 2013