Perry v. Brown - S189476

“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.”

The California Supreme Court shortened the normal briefing schedule to expedite consideration and resolution of the issues in the matter and to accommodate oral argument as early as September 2011.

The briefing schedule set by the court follows:

• The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.
• A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.
• Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011.
• Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011.

Briefs

• Ordering Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of California
• Opinion
• Concurrence to the Certification Order and Per Curiam Opinion
• Memorandum Regarding Motion to Disqualify
• Memorandum Re: Additional Counsel
• Letter in Opposition to the Request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Filed by Counsel Theodore B. Olson on January 24, 2011
• Letter Requesting this Court to Grant the Request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Filed by Counsel Damien M. Schiff on January 24, 2011
• Letter in Support to the Request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Filed by Counsel Charles J. Cooper on January 24, 2011
• Letter Requesting this Court to Reformulate the Questions Certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Filed by Counsel Therese M. Stewart on January 24, 2011
• Letter Filed by Counsel Theodore B. Olson on February 2, 2011, in Reply to the Letter Submitted by Counsel Charles J. Cooper on January 24, 2011
• Letter Filed by Counsel Charles J. Cooper on February 7, 2011, in Response to the Letter Submitted by Counsel Therese M. Stewart on January 24, 2011
• Letter Requesting the Court to Speed Adjudication of this Case, Filed by Counsel Therese M. Stewart on February 24, 2011
• Appellants, Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com, Opening Brief on the Merits
• Appellants, Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com, Appendix to Opening Brief on the Merits
• Respondents, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Answer Brief on the Merits
• Respondent, City and County of San Francisco, Answer Brief on the Merits
• Respondent, City and County of San Francisco, Appendix to Answer Brief on the Merits
• Respondent, City and County of San Francisco, Request for Judicial Notice
• Letter Filed by Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken on April 18, 2011, Advising the Court of an En Banc Opinion Issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 12, 2011
• Appellants, Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com, Reply Brief on the Merits