570 U.S. 693 (2013)
In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting the official designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.1 Later that year, California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the state.2 The California Supreme Court rejected a procedural challenge and held that the proposition was properly enacted under California law.3
Respondents, two same-sex couples who wish to marry, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.4 The complaint named as defendants California's Governor, Attorney General, and other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California's marriage laws.5 Those officials refused to defend the law, although they continued to enforce it throughout the litigation.6
The District Court allowed petitioners, the official proponents of the initiative, to intervene to defend Proposition 8.7 After a twelve-day bench trial, the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, permanently enjoined the named defendant officials from enforcing the law, and directed that all persons under their control or supervision shall not enforce it.8
Those officials elected not to appeal the District Court order.9 Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.10 The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court.11 The question asked whether, under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess the authority to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity.12 It also asked whether they may appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.13
The California Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative.14 Relying on that answer, the Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioners had standing under federal law to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and affirmed the District Court's order on the merits.15 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review that determination and directed the parties to brief and argue whether petitioners have standing under Article III in this case.16
Whether petitioners, the official proponents of Proposition 8, have standing under Article III to appeal the District Court judgment invalidating the proposition when the state officials named as defendants decline to appeal?17
Article III of the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual Cases or Controversies.18 One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so.19 The litigant must prove a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.20 Standing must be met by persons seeking appellate review just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.21 A generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing.22
No. Petitioners, the official proponents of Proposition 8, intervened in the District Court to defend the law.23 The District Court did not order them to do or refrain from doing anything.24 After the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the named state officials declined to appeal.25 This left petitioners as the only parties seeking review.26
Petitioners' interest was solely to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law.27 That interest constitutes a generalized grievance insufficient under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and related precedents.28 The California Supreme Court ruling authorizing petitioners to assert the state's interest under state law does not create standing.29 Standing is a question of federal law.
Petitioners hold no office, are not agents of the state, and possess no personal stake distinguishable from that of every California citizen.30
Petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court order so the Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction and its judgment must be vacated.31
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, And Sotomayor
Justice Kennedy dissents on the ground that the California Supreme Court decision is binding on the question of state law.32 That decision establishes that proponents possess authority to assert the state's interest when officials decline to defend an initiative.33 He argues that Article III does not require compliance with the Restatement of Agency or any formal agency relationship.34
The initiative process exists precisely to allow the people to bypass officials who refuse to defend voter-approved measures.35 Justice Kennedy concludes that the majority misapplies justiciability principles.36 The decision leaves a district court injunction unreviewable contrary to the design of the initiative system in California and twenty-six other states.37