Prop 8 Question

Eric Segall esegall at gsu.edu
Wed Jan 20 13:10:38 PST 2010


Well, there has to be an Article III case or controversy.There are plenty of cases where a plaintiff suffers sufficient injury for Article III but sues either the wrong defendant or there is no appropriate defendant (Allen v. Wright, Simon, etc.) 

Could these plaintiffs have sued these defendants originally instead of the State of California . . . . I don't think so.

Eric

>>> earl maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu> 1/20/2010 4:02 PM >>>
Is there any case law which suggests that Article III has any applicability 
to defendants?

At 02:10 PM 1/20/2010 -0800, Steve Sanders wrote:
>In a similar vein as Justice Scalia's critique of the use of legislative
>history, can we assume that the groups that formally pushed Prop 8 will
>accurately and properly represent the voters who enacted it?  How do we know
>what considerations and motives influenced any given pro-Prop 8 voter?  What
>if the groups pushing it (and now defending it) used deceptive arguments or
>lied to the voters about facts ("this will mean gay marriage is taught in
>schools," etc.), meaning the enactment could have been based, at least in
>part, on fraud?  We accept this in political campaigns, but aren't standing
>requirements (or, cf the FRCP 23 requirements for representing a class)
>usually more demanding?
>
>Steve
>_____________________________________
>
>Steve Sanders
>Attorney, Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice group, Mayer Brown
>LLP, Chicago
>Co-editor, Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog
>Adjunct faculty, University of Michigan Law School (Winter term 2010)
>Email: stevesan at umich.edu 
>Personal home page: www.stevesanders.net 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Howard Wasserman
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:42 AM
> > To: Eric Segall; dcruz at law.usc.edu 
> > Cc: mtushnet at law.harvard.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
> > Subject: RE: Prop 8 Question
> >
> > Probably because it was passed via popular democratic
> > processes, so the back-up defender of the law is the private
> > organization(s) that worked to enact it. It does not seem (to
> > me) different than granting standing to members of the
> > legislature to defend a piece of enacted legislation that the
> > executive refused to defend.
> >
> >
> > Howard M. Wasserman
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > FIU College of Law
> > University Park, RDB 2065
> > Miami, Florida  33199
> > (305) 348-7482
> > (786) 417-2433
> > howard.wasserman at fiu.edu 
> > Faculty Page:http://law.fiu.edu/faculty/faculty_wasserman.htm
> > http://ssrn.com/author_id=283130 
> > ________________________________________
> > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> > [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Segall
> > [esegall at gsu.edu] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:50 AM
> > To: dcruz at law.usc.edu 
> > Cc: mtushnet at law.harvard.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
> > Subject: Re: Prop 8 Question
> >
> > And that satisifes Article III?
> >
> > >>> David Cruz <dcruz at law.usc.edu> 01/20/10 10:05 AM >>>
> > The official ballot proponents of Prop 8 were granted
> > standing to intervene as defendants.
> >
> > David B. Cruz
> > Professor of Law
> > University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los
> > Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A.
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2010, at 6:48 AM, "Eric Segall" <esegall at gsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I am guessing the answer is obvious but can someone tell me
> > how there
> > > is federal jurisdiction over this case given that the State of
> > > California is not defending the validity of Prop 8. Could lobbyists
> > > defend an Act of Congress that the DOJ refused to defend?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Eric
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
> > >
> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as
> > > private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are
> > > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> > > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> > messages to others.
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> > messages to others.
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.



More information about the Conlawprof mailing list