Family Legal Ease - Family Law and LGBT Legal Services

Update of the Supreme Court case of Perry v. Brown.

As a reminder: The Perry v. Brown case was decided in the Trial Court and was then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals then requested of the Supreme Court, under rule 8.548, that the Supreme Court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending. The Supreme Court accepted the request and is not charged with decuding the question of law before the Court of Appeals can continue to reach a decision of the case before them. The quest of law is:   "Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so."

Most of the activity in this case thus far has been the requests for permission to file amicus curiae briefs and the filing of those briefs.

Activity for 5/6/2011:

• The application of Pacific Legal Foundation, Ward Connerly, Glynn Custred, Ron Unz and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Connerly, Ward; Attorney: Harold E. Johnso; Amicus curiae: Custred, Glynn; Attorney: Harold E. Johnso; Amicus curiae: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Attorney: Harold E. Johnso; Amicus curiae: Pacific Legal Foundation; Attorney: Harold E. Johnson  

• The application of the League of Women Voters of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: League of Women Voters of California; Attorney: Cynthia Tobisman  

• The application of California Faith for Equality, California Council of Churches, General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Episcopal Bishops of California and Los Angeles, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis, Unitarian Universalist Association and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: California Faith for Equality; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacson; Amicus curiae: General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacso; Amicus curiae: Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacso; Amicus curiae: Episcopal Bishops of California and Los Angeles; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacso; Amicus curiae: Progressive Jewish Alliance; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacso; Amicus curiae: Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacson; Amicus curiae: Unitarian Universalist Association; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacson; Amicus curiae: Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California; Attorney: Eric Alan Isaacson.

• The application of County of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, City of Oakland, City of Cloverdale, County of San Mateo, City of Santa Cruz and County of Sonoma for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: County of Santa Clara; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez; Amicus curiae: County of Santa Cruz; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez; Amicus curiae: City of Oakland; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez; Amicus curiae: City of Cloverdale; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez; Amicus curiae: County of San Mateo; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez; Amicus curiae: City of Santa Cruz; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez; Amicus curiae: County of Sonoma; Attorney: Miguel Alberto Marquez.

• The application of Margie Reilly for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Reilly, Margie; Attorney: James Joseph Lynch  

• The application of Jon B. Eisenberg and Laurie L. Levenson for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

•   Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Eisenberg, Jon B.; Attorney: Laura Wolfe Brill; Amicus curiae: Levenson, Laurie L.; Attorney: Laura Wolfe Brill  

• The application of Equality California, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Equality California; Attorney: David C. Codell; Amicus curiae: National Center for Lesbian Rights; Attorney: David C. Codell; Amicus curiae: Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; Attorney: David C. Codell  

• The application of Judicial Watch, Inc. for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Judicial Watch, Inc.; Attorney: Julie Beth Axelrod  

• The application of Joshua Beckley for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Beckley, Joshua; Attorney: Kevin T. Snider  

• The application of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed on or before May 9, 2011.

• Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; Attorney: John C. Eastman