A major procedural question looms over the two marriage cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court: Do the parties who seek to defend the marriage-recognition bans have standing to advance their views? The question arises because the governments that would have Article III standing, by virtue of their enforcement authority, are not defending their own laws. Instead, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, private parties are attempting to take up the state government’s mantle to de fend Proposition 8, which withdrew marriage rights from same-sex couples in California. And in United States v. Windsor, five members of the House of Representatives leadership seek to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the name of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG).
Constitutional Law | Law
Suzanne B. Goldberg,
Article III Double-Dipping: Proposition 8's Sponsors, Blag, and the Government's Interest,
U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3271