InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Hollingsworth v. Perry

In a challenge to California's ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, the Court held that the initiative's official sponsors lacked Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling.· AI-written

570 U.S. 693 · No. 12-144 · 2012 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 26, 2013 · argued Mar 26, 2013

Judicial power · Standing to sue: personal injury

Majority opinion: John Roberts

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Vacated and remanded. Hollingsworth lost.

What this ruling means

Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.

Hollingsworth was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that reinstated same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. The effect of the ruling was that same-sex marriage in California resumed under the district court trial decision from 2010.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianGinsburgSotomayorKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsScaliaAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
HollingsworthVoter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)
Respondent
PerryLesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 26, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. Hollingsworth lost.
  2. Mar 26, 2013ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

23 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: personal injury, newest first.

  1. Frank v. Gaos139 S. Ct. 1041Mar 20, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1041Judicial power8–18–1 band

  2. Comcast Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Caroline Behrend et al.569 U.S. 27Mar 27, 2013 · 569 U.S. 27Judicial power5–45–4 band

  3. Bob Camreta, Petitioner v. Sarah Greene, Personally and As Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a Minor563 U.S. 692May 26, 2011 · 563 U.S. 692Judicial power7–27–2 band

  4. Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.Landmark · Administrative law549 U.S. 497Apr 2, 2007 · 549 U.S. 497Judicial power5–45–4 band

  5. John F. Kowalski, Judge, 26th Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, et al. v. John C. Tesmer, et al.543 U.S. 125Dec 13, 2004 · 543 U.S. 125Judicial power6–36–3 band

  6. Elk Grove Unified School District and David W. Gordon, Superintendent v. Michael A. Newdow et al.542 U.S. 1Jun 14, 2004 · 542 U.S. 1Judicial power8–0Unanimous band

  7. Friends of the Earth, Incorporated, et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Toc), Inc.528 U.S. 167Jan 12, 2000 · 528 U.S. 167Judicial power7–27–2 band

  8. Frederick D. Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, et al. v. Robert C. Byrd et al.521 U.S. 811Jun 26, 1997 · 521 U.S. 811Judicial power7–27–2 band

  9. United States v. Hays et al.515 U.S. 737Jun 29, 1995 · 515 U.S. 737Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  10. State of Wyoming v. State of Oklahoma502 U.S. 437Jan 22, 1992 · 502 U.S. 437Judicial power6–36–3 band
  11. Lujan, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. National Wildlife Federation et al.497 U.S. 871Jun 27, 1990 · 497 U.S. 871Judicial power5–45–4 band
  12. Whitmore, Individually and As Next Friend of Simmons v. Arkansas et al.495 U.S. 149Apr 24, 1990 · 495 U.S. 149Judicial power7–27–2 band

  13. Karcher, Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, et al. v. May et al.484 U.S. 72Dec 1, 1987 · 484 U.S. 72Judicial power8–0Unanimous band

  14. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor477 U.S. 274Jun 25, 1986 · 477 U.S. 274Judicial power5–45–4 band
  15. Diamond et al. v. Charles et al.476 U.S. 54Apr 30, 1986 · 476 U.S. 54Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  16. Allen v. Wright et al.468 U.S. 737Jul 3, 1984 · 468 U.S. 737Judicial power5–36–3 band

  17. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons461 U.S. 95Apr 20, 1983 · 461 U.S. 95Judicial power5–45–4 band

  18. Singleton, Chief, Bureau of Medical Services, Department of Health and Welfare of Missouri v. Wulff et al.428 U.S. 106Jul 1, 1976 · 428 U.S. 106Judicial power5–45–4 band
  19. O'Shea, Magistrate, Circuit Court of Alexander County, Illinois, et al. v. Littleton et al.414 U.S. 488Jan 15, 1974 · 414 U.S. 488Judicial power6–36–3 band
  20. Investment Company Institute et al. v. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency, et al.401 U.S. 617Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 617Judicial power6–27–2 band
  21. Barlow et al. v. Collins, Executive Director, Alabama Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, et al.397 U.S. 159Mar 3, 1970 · 397 U.S. 159Judicial power6–27–2 band
  22. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., et al. v. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency, et al.397 U.S. 150Mar 3, 1970 · 397 U.S. 150Judicial power6–27–2 band
  23. Railroad Transfer Service, Inc. v. City of Chicago et al.386 U.S. 351Mar 27, 1967 · 386 U.S. 351Judicial power8–18–1 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.