California's Proposition 8 in Federal Court

The pages linked on the left under "Key Briefs and Filings" contain selected filings from six cases that led up to the petition in Hollingsworth v. Perry. They're listed here in reverse chronological order (roughly, because some of the proceedings overlapped in time): 

• Perry v. Brown, Nos. 10–16696, 11–16577, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). This page collects materials from the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling following trial, including the parties' briefs in the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit's decision that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 
• Perry v. Brown, No. 11-17255, 667 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2012). This page collects material related to the appeal of the trial court's order unsealing the trial recordings. The Ninth Circuit reversed the order and ordered the recordings re-sealed. 
• Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-2292, 790 F. Supp. 2d. 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2010). This page collects the trial court filings and orders related to a motion by defendant-intervenors to vacate Judge Walker's judgment, after he disclosed following retirement that he was in a long-term same-sex relationship. Judge Ware, who took over the case following Judge Walker's retirement, denied the motion. 
• Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-2292, 2011 WL 4527359 (N.D. Cal.). After appealing Judge Walker's ruling in the original trial, the parties sparred in the Ninth Circuit over whether video recordings of the trial should be kept under seal. The Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to the District Court, where Judge Ware granted appellee's motion to unseal, subject to a temporary stay. This page collects the Ninth Circuit materials and the trial court's order. 
• Perry v. Brown, No. S189476, 52 Cal. 4th 1116 (2011). Faced with the question of whether defendant-intervenors had standing to defend Proposition 8 under California law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court. This page contains filings related to the California Supreme Court case and the court's judgment that defendant-intervenors did have standing under California law. 
• Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-2292, 704 F. Supp. 2d. 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). A complaint challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 was filed on May 22, 2009; on August 4, 2010, Judge Walker decided ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Defendant-intervenors, the proponents of Proposition 8, filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on August 4, 2010.