Strange bedfellows: The rationale of the Prop 8 dissenters
What Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor had to say about "standing," and why it matters for voters
While the Supreme Court's decision to essentially pass on Prop 8 has been widely heralded as a victory for gay rights, there's one detail that's been (largely) ignored: The dissent.
On Twitter, Slate's Dave Weigel points out that, unlike the court's decision to strike down DOMA, the split in Hollingsworth v. Perry bucked the court's usual ideological lines:
But this shouldn't necessarily be a surprise.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
After all, one of the key questions in the Hollingsworth case was whether the plaintiffs had "standing" — or a right to challenge the lower court's decision under the law — after state officials in California declined to appeal the district courts' decision.
PolicyMic's Jordan Fraade explains:
In its majority opinion, the court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ultimately concluded that the petitioners did not have standing, writing: "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here."
That's still a victory (albeit, a limited one) for same-sex marriage supporters, since it leaves the lower district court's ruling (invalidating Prop 8) intact. But it's not as sweeping a victory as it could've been had the court, say, granted standing and actually decided the case's merits.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
And for an unusual lineup of justices, that's exactly what they should have done — although not for reasons that have anything to do with gay marriage.
For court watchers who paid attention to oral arguments in April, the list of dissenting justices — Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor — is not a huge surprise. Thomas, of course, didn't say anything (he hasn't asked a question during oral arguments since 2006). But Kenendy, Alito, and Sotomayor each peppered Ted Olson (the lawyer challenging Prop 8, who argued that same-sex marriage opponents should not have the right to defend the law in lieu of the government) with hard questions about the implications of denying standing.
Here's Kennedy:
And Alito:
Alito, again:
And finally, Sotomayor:
The three justices' questions anticipated their dissent today, which made an impassioned argument for why the court should have granted standing and considered the Hollingsworth case further.
Led by Kennedy, the dissenters argue that their colleagues failed to "take into account the fundamental principles or the principle dynamics of the initiative system."
Particularly worrisome to the dissenters is that by denying standing, the court effectively undermined the ballot initiative system — and not just in California, but in "the 26 other States that permit initiatives and popular referendums." "The very object of the initiative system is to establish a lawmaking process that does not depend upon state officials," Kennedy writes.
Let's look at how this might play out.
Imagine, for instance, that California experiences a sudden and dramatic spike in air pollution. State legislators and the governor — who, let's say, receive a ton of campaign contributions from the auto industry — won't pass a bill to limit vehicle emissions, so voters decide to put it on the ballot instead. It passes with clear and overwhelming support. The auto industry challenges the law in federal district court and wins, but state officials decline to appeal the ruling.
Under Hollingsworth, that leaves nobody able to pick up the baton and defend the vehicle emissions law. A measure that was overwhelmingly supported by voters and democratically passed is left dead in the water (and Californians are left to continue choking to death on smog), because the law's opponents had the resources and influence to kill it.
According to Governing's Dylan Scott, one Duke University professor says the Hollingsworth decision "could be a huge problem." Eric Veram, who covers ballot initiatives for Ballotpedia, told Scott it "could be something to watch for." But Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State Legal Law Center, says it would probably be a rare situation. And Suzanne Goldberg, a law professor at Columbia University, said on SCOTUSblog that letting private citizens assume the government's role "would have created enormous political problems."
Supporters of gay marriage are unlikely to focus on this aspect of the case, since the majority's decision to steer clear of a broad, sweeping ruling is still a victory for them (and there's no guarantee that the court would have sided with them if it had considered the case).
But as Kevin Drum points out at Mother Jones, while this decision may have yielded many Americans' preferred outcome in this individual case, it "is basically gutting the people's right to pass initiatives that elected officials don't like and then to defend them all the way to the highest court in the land." It has, Drum writes, "neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance."
Of course, the court often draws criticism for avoiding controversial issues — either by ruling in the narrowest possible way, or avoiding the merits of a case altogether when it can. Some think this is especially true when it comes to high-profile cases that involve polarizing social issues. (Justice Ginsburg, for example, has often been described as critical of Roe v. Wade; in the past, she has indicated that the court should avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion, lest it trigger a harsh public backlash).
The Hollingsworth dissenters seem to acknowledge this, but point out that setting bad precedents (like disenfranchising voters or nullifying ballot initiatives) to avoiding controversial subjects is a cowardly move:
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sergio Hernandez is business editor of The Week's print edition. He has previously worked for The Daily, ProPublica, the Village Voice, and Gawker.
-
What is cloud seeding and did it cause Dubai's severe rainfall?
The Explainer The future is flooded
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
American Airlines pilots are warning of a 'significant spike' in safety issues
In the Spotlight The pilot's union listed 'problematic trends' they say are affecting the airline's fleet
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
6 star-spangled presidential libraries to visit
The Week Recommends These institutions provide insight into American leaders
By Catherine Garcia, The Week US Published
-
Myanmar: the Spring Revolution and the downfall of the generals
Talking Point An armed protest movement has swept across the country since the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi was overthrown in 2021
By The Week Staff Published
-
Israel hits Iran with retaliatory airstrike
Speed Read The attack comes after Iran's drone and missile barrage last weekend
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Is there a peaceful way forward for Israel and Iran?
Today's Big Question Tehran has initially sought to downplay the latest Israeli missile strike on its territory
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Sudan on brink of collapse after a year of war
Speed Read 18 million people face famine as the country continues its bloody downward spiral
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How powerful is Iran?
Today's big question Islamic republic is facing domestic dissent and 'economic peril' but has a vast military, dangerous allies and a nuclear threat
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US, Israel brace for Iran retaliatory strikes
Speed Read An Iranian attack on Israel is believed to be imminent
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
How green onions could swing South Korea's election
The Explainer Country's president has fallen foul of the oldest trick in the campaign book, not knowing the price of groceries
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published