Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow

I have just received the following email from the Judge Vaughn Walker’s court on the Prop 8 case:

August 3, 2010


On August 4, 2010, the court will issue its written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law following the court trial held in January and June of this year. The order will be e-filed in the court’s Electronic Case Filing system, and will be immediately available thereafter through ECF and PACER. Visit for details on registering for PACER. There will be no court proceeding associated with the publication of the order.

A small number of hard copies will also be made available for public review shortly after the order is e-filed in the following locations:

San Francisco Courthouse: Clerk’s Office (16th Floor) & Press Room (18th Floor)

Oakland Courthouse: Clerk’s Office

San Jose Courthouse: Clerk’s Office

So tomorrow will be a very momentous day. The decision in Perry will be groundbreaking and historic regardless of which way it goes. From what I saw and heard at the closing arguments in June, it is hard to believe there will not be some relief granted by Judge Walker to Plaintiffs Perry et. al; the question is how it will be formed. But that is just a guess; Walker certainly did not tip his hand in any regard, so it could go either way.

Stay tuned to Emptywheel and Firedoglake for full coverage of the decision when it is filed.

  1. nahant says:

    I’m Hoping for a positive result. And yes Teddy, bmaz, Marcy and the crew that make it possible Thanks for all your hard work covering this!! ☆ ✰ ☆ ✰ Gold ones at that!!

    • Twain says:

      I think we will all be holding our breath tomorrow for the thousands who this ruling will effect.

  2. Margaret says:

    I can’t imagine any rationale for any judge to uphold disparate treatment of citizens regardless of whether that treatment is a product of legislation or ballot initiative. That being said, I also am aware that it’s happened many times prior and almost certainly will in the future.
    I’ve always said that if LGBT persons aren’t deserving of equal civil rights under the laws and Constitution, how is it fair or possible that we have the same and sometimes greater tax liability?
    I’m not going to make any predictions.

  3. figaro says:

    “Justice will prevail!” he repeated to himself over and over in a desperate attempt to wipe out the memory of the last decade.

    Can’t wait to see the back of Schwarzenegger’s head as he leaves office. What a disappointment he turned out to be. What was Maria thinking? Although I’m not too excited about any of his possible replacements.

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Citizen figaro:

      “What a dissapointment he (Schwarznegger) turned out to be.”

      WTF??!!! You didn’t really believe that he was anything more than a brainless opportunist in the mold of Jessie Ventura didja?

      • figaro says:

        Yeah, but he even sucked at that! I thought he might be one of those “moderate” Republicans who smoked pot and had a realistic view of the world. My mistake.

  4. NorskeFlamethrower says:


    Citizen bmaz and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

    Please give us a brief outline of what kind of “relief” the judge can impose at this time. And,forgetting about inevitable appeals, what remedies from the bench will have the furthest reach and the best chance for permanent resolution.

    Thanks, this issue and the coverage of the trial are examples of what FDL does best.


  5. demi says:

    I’m on pins and needles. I know this thing is going to the top, but still, I’m hoping the reason Walker took his time in issuing the ruling is that he was crossing every t and dotting every i. Big decision, if I do say so.

  6. demi says:

    PS, I’m hoping Teddy gets to be the one to write the post about this. No offense to the EW crowd. Just saying.

  7. Kelly Canfield says:

    I’m ready to party a bit in anticipation, but have a pretty square-jaw mind-set about this.

    I’ve been at this equality business for 30 years now, and even as tomorrow’s ruling will be historic, in either direction, there are more years to go.

    • bmaz says:

      But it IS important to win the trial, because then that is the presumed verdict and has the benefit over the side appealing from it.

      • Kelly Canfield says:

        No doubt about that, at all, in my mind. None.

        I’m just saying this ride ain’t over, and I’ll celebrate this stop in the pasture, and keep riding.

        It’s my horse after all!

  8. Petrocelli says:

    Methinks Boies tipped us off to how Walker will rule by stating that you either have Constitutional Rule or you have voters making up law on a whim … and America clearly is the former [loose quote, can’t find linky].

    The Supremes will have final say, and unfortunately, it won’t be these Supremes …

    • ratfood says:

      I can well imagine the current SC ruling that since there is no specific reference to same sex couples in the Constitution, they are not entitled to any special protections.

      Those who endeavor to perpetuate discrimination are always on the wrong side of history. I admit that sometimes I despair at how much history must transpire before these injustices can be corrected.

      • Petrocelli says:

        Ted Olson is going to stand before the Supremes and give them a lesson in Lawyering. After that, Prop H8 will be quashed. There is no other possible outcome …

        … and yes, I am a hopeless optimist …

  9. PJEvans says:

    Over at the Great Orange Satan, it’s being reported that the pro-8 side is trying to get a stay on tomorrow’s order. Quoting (emphasis in the post):

    Further, absent an immediate stay of any ruling invalidating Prop 8, same-sex couples would be permitted to marry in the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles (and possibly throughout California). Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should Proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid ab initio. Indeed, in 2004, the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, resulting in approximately 4,000 purported same-sex marriages in about one month’s time.See Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459, 465, 467 (Cal. 2004). The California Supreme Court held that San Francisco lacked authority for its actions, and ordered that “all same-sex marriages authorized, solemnized, or registered by the city officials must be considered void and of no legal effect from their inception.”Id. at 495.2

    Repeating that experience would inflict harm on the affected couples and place administrative burdens on the State

    • bmaz says:

      Yep I saw it the second it was filed, but had a couple of things to do; I will probably write up a post in a few minutes as there are some significant implications here.

  10. iowa says:

    Do gay couples need Judge Walker’s ruling (assuming he strikes down Prop 8) to feel validated? If so, you might want to work on your self esteem. 10 years ago this issue wasn’t even on the radar. Win or lose, live your life. If it’s a win, it could end up being a Pyrrhic victory, which in this case means winning the argument but losing the crowd. It is hollow rhetoric to denounce all opponents of same-sex marriage as “bigots.” Is it too much to conceive that there are principled opponents of same-sex marriage who do not “hate” gays? If so, perhaps that explains why same-sex marriage has not curried sympathy when put to a vote (current tally, 30 states voted on same-sex marriage, and same-sex marriage is now 0-30).

    • Petrocelli says:

      If you had any self esteem, you would not have revealed your idiocy so readily. All opponents of same sex marriage share one intrinsic goal – to deny equal rights to a certain segment of society.

      There can be no defense of this, it is shameful no matter your illusion.

      Oh and you might want to note just how many states presently allow same-sex marriages.