LAMBDA LEGAL ARCHIVE SITETHIS SITE IS NO LONGER MAINTAINED. TO SEE OUR MOST RECENT CASES AND NEWS, VISITNEW LAMBDALEGAL.ORG

Press releases related to Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger)

Find Your State

Know the laws in your state that protect LGBT people and people living with HIV.

Legal Help Desk

Call us or submit your legal questions online.

Learn More

  • Lambda Legal Statement After California Supreme Court Hearing on Prop 8

    September 6, 2011
    (San Francisco, September 6, 2011) — Today, the California Supreme Court heard arguments as to whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have an adequate interest under California law to defend the constitutionality of such an initiative when public officials decline to appeal a judgment invalidating it. Lambda Legal issued the following statement from Legal Director Jon Davidson following today’s oral arguments:

  • California court seems torn over Prop 8 standing issue

    September 6, 2011
    "Proponents of Proposition 8 argued Tuesday that Yes on 8 must be granted standing to defend the California same-sex marriage ban in federal court to protect the power of the people to amend their constitution; opponents argued Yes on 8 must be denied standing in order to protect the power of the people to elected state officers, in accordance with the state constitution.

  • Federal Court Rules Being Gay Not Grounds for Recusal: Lambda Legal Applauds

    June 14, 2011
    The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled today that being gay doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling impartially on a case involving rights that impact lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

  • Lambda Legal Issues Statement After Federal Court Hearing on Prop 8 Proponents' Gay Judge Witch Hunt

    June 13, 2011
    This morning the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California heard oral arguments on a motion filed by Prop 8 proponents seeking to overturn Judge Walker's ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional because he has been in a relationship with another man for 10 years.

  • Laura W. Brill: It's time for Prop. 8 opponents to re-engage

    May 27, 2011
    "This week marks the two-year anniversary of the California Supreme Court's unfortunate decision upholding Proposition 8 as a valid exercise of the state's initiative process. A coalition argued that under the state Constitution, members of a minority group cannot be stripped of the fundamental right to marry based on the vote of a bare majority. The court, however, disagreed.

  • LGBT Equal Rights Groups Urge Court to Reject Attack on Prop 8 Trial Judge

    May 13, 2011
    A coalition of groups that advocate for the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people today filed a brief urging the U.S. District Court not to vacate last year's historic ruling invalidating Proposition 8. Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the ACLU of Northern California and Equality California filed the friend-of-the-court brief in Perry v. Brown in response to a motion filed last month by supporters of Proposition 8 that asked the court to undo last year's decision in that case. The Prop 8 supporters contend that now-retired Chief Judge Vaughn Walker should have declined to hear the case because he was in a long-term relationship with another man, and that the judge's 135-page decision, which followed a three-week trial, should be invalidated for that reason.

  • EQCA, NCLR, and Lambda Legal File Amicus Brief in California Supreme Court in Proposition 8 Challenge

    May 4, 2011
    (San Francisco, CA, May 4, 2011) - Yesterday, Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the court brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that the proponents of Proposition 8 have no power to override the decision of elected state officials about whether to appeal a federal court decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The brief explains that initiative proponents are unelected and have no right to act as representatives of the state. It also explains that regardless of how the California Supreme Court rules, the supporters of Proposition 8 have no "standing" to pursue an appeal in federal court because they are not harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry and because their interests were limited to having the measure put to a vote.

Pages