Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc 63

CA9Doc 63

Ratings: (0)|Views: 798 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Amicus brief by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 09/24/2010
Amicus brief by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 09/24/2010

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Sep 25, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/27/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 
Nos. 10-16696IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 _________________________________KRISTIN PERRY,
et al.
,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.
,
 Defendants
,andDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH
 , et al.
,
 Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants
 _________________________________ON APPEAL FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL CASE NO. 09-cv-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)_________________________________BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCEIN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL
 
_________________________________JOHN C. EASTMAN, Cal. Bar No. 193726ANTHONY T. CASO, Cal. Bar No. 88561KAREN J. LUGO, Cal. Bar No. 241268CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCEc/o Chapman University School of LawOne University DriveOrange, CA 92866Telephone: (714) 628-2500
 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 1 of 41 ID: 7487151 DktEntry: 63
 
ii
 
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the undersigned states that
amicus curiae
, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, is not a corporation thatissues stock or has a parent corporation that issues stock.CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONALJURISPRUDENCEJohn C. EastmanBy: /s/ John C. Eastman________Attorneys for
 Amicus Curiae
 
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
 
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 2 of 41 ID: 7487151 DktEntry: 63
 
iii
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ivINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..............................................................................1BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...............................................2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................9ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................10I. The Initiative Proponents Have Standing to Defend Proposition 8,Both as Agents of the State and in Their Own Right. ................................... 10A. The Principal Purpose of the Initiative Power Is To Allow ThePeople To Act Directly, When Their Government Officials Will Not. ... 10B. California Law Authorizes Proponents of Initiatives to Stand in as“Agents of the State” to Defend Their Initiative, At Least WhenGovernment Officials Will Not, Thereby Providing Them Standingin Federal Court for Article III Purposes. ................................................ 13C. California Law Recognizes a Fundamental Right of Citizens toPropose Initiatives, and this Right Becomes A Particularized Interestfor Citizens Who Serve as an Initiative’s Official Proponents. ............... 22II. Imperial County and Its Officials Were Entitled to Intervene as of Right under Rule 24(a). Their Parallel Appeal Therefore Provides anAlternative Ground for Jurisdiction By This Court To HearProponents’ Appeal. ...................................................................................... 24III. The District Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction By Ignoring (andtherefore Effectively Overruling) Governing Precedent of theSupreme Court and of This Court, and by Issuing a Broad Injunction,Without a Class Action Certification, Purportedly BindingEverywhere in California, Even With Respect to Non-Parties. .................... 27CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................30CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 31CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................32
Case: 10-16696 09/24/2010 Page: 3 of 41 ID: 7487151 DktEntry: 63

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
sgunnar liked this
John Lay liked this
howller liked this
rbwlnuo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->