In the second of two landmark cases on same-sex marriage, the US Supreme Court gave same-sex marriage supporters a second large victory, but this time by choosing not to rule on the case in front of them.

            In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court, which was a 5-4 majority, although surprisingly, this time the divide was not by party lines. He starts off by identifying what it is the Court was asked to rule on. “In this case, petitioners, who oppose same-sex marriage, ask us to decide whether the Equal Protection Clause “prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” Respondents, same-sex couples who wish to marry, view the issue in somewhat different terms: For them, it is whether California—having previously recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry—may reverse that decision through a referendum.”

            Roberts says next, “Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or “controversy.” As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those “historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” This is the central argument to the Opinion of the Court. Roberts even makes a point of identifying the importance of this to the Supreme Court.

            “This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives. For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.”

            The last sentence is a short summary of the ruling of the court, but to Roberts, this point that the Court must be faced with an “actual case” or “controversy,” is one of the key checks on the Supreme Court. To him, this is the defining difference between the Supreme Court and Congress, the “elected representatives” whose job is to “engage in policymaking.”

            Roberts addresses the role of standing in court cases. He says, “Most standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, but Article III demands that an “actual controversy” persist throughout all stages of litigation.” It is that last part, “persist throughout all stages of litigation,” that is key to the Court’s decision.

            At first, Roberts addresses the Court’s skepticism of the petitioners (the people choosing to fight to maintain the legality of Prop. 8 in place of the state government) standing to defend the case. “The only individuals who sought to appeal that order were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court. But the District Court had not ordered them to do or refrain from doing anything. To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a “personal and individual way.” He must possess a “direct stake in the outcome” of the case. Here, however, petitioners had no “direct stake” in the outcome of their appeal. Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. We have repeatedly held that such a “generalized grievance,” no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing.”

            To have standing in Court, one must seek relief for an “injury that affects him in a ‘personal and individual way.’” The Respondents, as Roberts has dubbed the two couples fighting Prop. 8, had standing, because they were seeking relief from a specific injury: a referendum that denied them marriage after the State legalized it. The petitioners however, according to Roberts, had no “direct stake” in the ruling given to their appeal. They were merely interested in upholding “a generally applicable California law” (general here meaning affecting many people no more specifically than themselves). According to Roberts, the Court has repeatedly ruled that a grievance this generalized is insufficient for standing in Court.

Roberts goes on to address the counter argument the Petitioners gave about California’s Constitution and election laws. “Petitioners argue that the California Constitution and its election laws give them a “‘unique,’ ‘special,’ and ‘distinct’ role in the initiative process—one ‘involving both authority and responsibilities that differ from other supporters of the measure.’” True enough—but only when it comes to the process of enacting the law. Upon submitting the proposed initiative to the attorney general, petitioners became the official “proponents” of Proposition 8. As such, they were responsible for collecting the signatures required to qualify the measure for the ballot. After those signatures were collected, the proponents alone had the right to file the measure with election officials to put it on the ballot. Petitioners also possessed control over the arguments in favor of the initiative that would appear in California’s ballot pamphlets. But once Proposition 8 was approved by the voters, the measure became “a duly enacted constitutional amendment or statute.” Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in the enforcement of Proposition 8.”

            Here, Roberts admits that the Petitioners held the rights to the initiative up to the point it went on the ballot. They became responsible for collecting signatures, and to follow through and submit it to the election officials for the vote. They also had control over the information that would show up on the ballot pamphlets. He draws the line at the vote however. His argument is that once Proposition 8 was approved by the voters, it became a government issue. Essentially Roberts is saying the petitioners have no legal authority to enforce Proposition 8. As they have no control over the enforcement of the law, they are no different from other citizens not fighting to keep Prop. 8.

            “They therefore have no “personal stake” in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen of California. Article III standing ‘is not to be placed in the hands of ‘concerned bystanders,’ who will use it simply as a ‘vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’’”

            Essentially Roberts is telling the petitioners that the Court will not grant Article III standing to citizens who only have a general interest in upholding a law. As they are not seeking relief to an injury, and have no legal jurisdiction in enforcing the law, the Court sees they have no standing, giving the Supreme Court no authority to hear the case. The final Supreme Court decision is as follows:

“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. Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

            The Supreme Court took it one step further and struck down the Ninth Circuit’s decision, saying the petitioners also lacked standing in that case, and so the Ninth Circuit had no authority to consider the appeal. As the District Court did have legal authority to hear the case, the decision of the District Court, which ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, stands.

            What does this mean? Well, the federal Court, which put a freeze on all same-sex marriages in California until the Supreme Court issued its ruling, removed that freeze a couple days later. Within days of that announcement, same-sex marriages resumed in California, making it the 13^th state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriages, now including federal benefits due to the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA.