Filed 8/12/04
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
BILL LOCKYER, as Attorney General, etc., )
Petitioner,
S122923
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO et al.,
)
Respondents.
)
BARBARA LEWIS et al.,
Petitioners,
S122865
v.
NANCY ALFARO, as County Clerk, etc., )
Respondent.
We assumed jurisdiction in these original writ proceedings to address an
important but relatively narrow legal issue — whether a local executive official
who is charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a state statute exceeds his or
her authority when, without any court having determined that the statute is
unconstitutional, the official deliberately declines to enforce the statute because he
or she determines or is of the opinion that the statute is unconstitutional.
1
In the present case, this legal issue arises out of the refusal of local officials
in the City and County of San Francisco to enforce the provisions of California’s
marriage statutes that limit the granting of a marriage license and marriage
certificate only to a couple comprised of a man and a woman.
The same legal issue and the same applicable legal principles could come
into play, however, in a multitude of situations. For example, we would face the
same legal issue if the statute in question were among those that restrict the
possession or require the registration of assault weapons, and a local official,
charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing those statutes, refused to apply their
provisions because of the official’s view that they violate the Second Amendment
of the federal Constitution. In like manner, the same legal issue would be
presented if the statute were one of the environmental measures that impose
restrictions upon a property owner’s ability to obtain a building permit for a
development that interferes with the public’s access to the California coastline,
and a local official, charged with the ministerial duty of issuing building permits,
refused to apply the statutory limitations because of his or her belief that they
effect an uncompensated “taking” of property in violation of the just compensation
clause of the state or federal Constitution.
Indeed, another example might illustrate the point even more clearly: the
same legal issue would arise if the statute at the center of the controversy were the
recently enacted provision (operative January 1, 2005) that imposes a ministerial
duty upon local officials to accord the same rights and benefits to registered
domestic partners as are granted to spouses (see Fam. Code, § 297.5, added by
Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 4)), and a local official — perhaps an officeholder in a
locale where domestic partnership rights are unpopular — adopted a policy of
refusing to recognize or accord to registered domestic partners the equal treatment
mandated by statute, based solely upon the official’s view (unsupported by any
2
judicial determination) that the statutory provisions granting such rights to
registered domestic partners are unconstitutional because they improperly amend
or repeal the provisions of the voter-enacted initiative measure commonly known
as Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act (Fam. Code, § 308.5)
without a confirming vote of the electorate, in violation of article II, section 10,
subdivision (c) of the California Constitution.
As these various examples demonstrate, although the present proceeding
may be viewed by some as presenting primarily a question of the substantive legal
rights of same-sex couples, in actuality the legal issue before us implicates the
interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official
duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authority granted to them as
officeholders. In short, the legal question at issue — the scope of the authority
entrusted to our public officials — involves the determination of a fundamental
question that lies at the heart of our political system: the role of the rule of law in
a society that justly prides itself on being “a government of laws, and not of men”
(or women).1
As indicated above, that issue ― phrased in the narrow terms presented by
this case ― is whether a local executive official, charged with the ministerial duty
1
The phrase “a government of laws, and not of men” was authored by John
Adams (Adams, Novanglus Papers, No. 7 (1774), reprinted in 4 Works of John
Adams (Charles Francis Adams ed. 1851) p. 106), and was included as part of the
separation of powers provision of the initial Massachusetts Constitution adopted in
1780. (Mass. Const. (1780) Part The First, art. XXX.) The separation of powers
provision of that state’s Constitution remains unchanged to this day, and reads in
full: “In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall
never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them; the executive
shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the
judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of
them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” (Italics added.)
3
of enforcing a statute, has the authority to disregard the terms of the statute in the
absence of a judicial determination that it is unconstitutional, based solely upon
the official’s opinion that the governing statute is unconstitutional. As we shall
see, it is well established, both in California and elsewhere, that subject to a
few narrow exceptions that clearly are inapplicable here a local executive
official does not possess such authority.
This conclusion is consistent with the classic understanding of the
separation of powers doctrine — that the legislative power is the power to enact
statutes, the executive power is the power to execute or enforce statutes, and the
judicial power is the power to interpret statutes and to determine their
constitutionality. It is true, of course, that the separation of powers doctrine does
not create an absolute or rigid division of functions. (Superior Court v. County of
Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 52.) Furthermore, legislators and executive
officials may take into account constitutional considerations in making
discretionary decisions within their authorized sphere of action — such as whether
to enact or veto proposed legislation or exercise prosecutorial discretion. When,
however, a duly enacted statute imposes a ministerial duty upon an executive
official to follow the dictates of the statute in performing a mandated act, the
official generally has no authority to disregard the statutory mandate based on the
official’s own determination that the statute is unconstitutional. (See, e.g., Kendall
v. United States (1838) 37 U.S. 522, 613 [“To contend that the obligation imposed
on the president to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their
execution is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”].)
Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we agree with petitioners that
local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in
violation of applicable statutory provisions. We therefore shall issue a writ of
mandate directing the officials to enforce those provisions unless and until they are
4
judicially determined to be unconstitutional and to take all necessary remedial
steps to undo the continuing effects of the officials’ past unauthorized actions,
including making appropriate corrections to all relevant official records and
notifying all affected same-sex couples that the same-sex marriages authorized by
the officials are void and of no legal effect.
To avoid any misunderstanding, we emphasize that the substantive question
of the constitutional validity of California’s statutory provisions limiting marriage
to a union between a man and a woman is not before our court in this proceeding,
and our decision in this case is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to
reflect any view on that issue. We hold only that in the absence of a judicial
determination that such statutory provisions are unconstitutional, local executive
officials lacked authority to issue marriage licenses to, solemnize marriages of, or
register certificates of marriage for same-sex couples, and marriages conducted
between same-sex couples in violation of the applicable statutes are void and of no
legal effect. Should the applicable statutes be judicially determined to be
unconstitutional in the future, same-sex couples then would be free to obtain valid
marriage licenses and enter into valid marriages.
I
The events that gave rise to this proceeding began on February 10, 2004,
when Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco and a
respondent in one of the consolidated cases before us,2 sent a letter to Nancy
2
Petitioner in the Lockyer matter is Bill Lockyer, the Attorney General of
California. The petition in Lockyer names as respondents the City and County of
San Francisco, Gavin Newsom in his official capacity as Mayor of the City and
County of San Francisco, Mabel S. Teng in her official capacity as Assessor-
Recorder of the City and County of San Francisco, and Nancy Alfaro in her
official capacity as the County Clerk of the City and County of San Francisco.
Petitioners in the Lewis matter are Barbara Lewis, Charles McIlhenny, and
(footnote continued on next page)
5
Alfaro, identified in the letter as the San Francisco County Clerk,3 requesting that
she “determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to
apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a
non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.” The
mayor stated in his letter that “[t]he Supreme Courts in other states have held that
equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination
against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing
from marriage,” and explained that it is his “belief that these decisions are
persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such
discrimination.” The mayor indicated that the request to the county clerk was
(footnote continued from previous page)
Edward Mei, San Francisco residents and taxpayers. The petition in Lewis names
as respondent Nancy Alfaro in her official capacity as the County Clerk of the City
and County of San Francisco.
For convenience, in this opinion we generally shall refer to the Attorney
General and petitioners in Lewis collectively as “petitioners” and to respondents in
both Lockyer and Lewis collectively as “the city” or “the city officials.”
3
The letter from Mayor Newsom identified Alfaro as the San Francisco
County Clerk. In its answer to the petition for writ of mandate in Lockyer, filed in
this court on March 18, 2004, however, the city alleges “that Daryl M. Burton is
the San Francisco County Clerk, and that Nancy Alfaro is the Director of the
County Clerk’s Office, to whom all of the responsibilities and privileges of
County Clerk have been delegated.” The answer further alleges that “as Burton’s
delegate, Nancy Alfaro is the designated ‘commissioner of civil marriages’ for San
Francisco.” Alfaro has filed a declaration stating that she is the Director of the
County Clerk’s Office for the City and County of San Francisco and that “[i]n that
capacity I perform all the duties, and hold all the responsibilities of, the County
Clerk. These duties include the issuance of all marriage licenses.” Petitioners do
not contend that Alfaro is not the official authorized to perform the duties assigned
by the applicable statutes to the county clerk, and thus we shall consider Alfaro the
county clerk for purposes of this proceeding.
6
made “[p]ursuant to [his] sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution,
including specifically its equal protection clause . . . .”4
In response to the mayor’s letter, the county clerk designed what she
describes as “a gender-neutral application for public marriage licenses, and a
gender-neutral marriage license,” to be used by same-sex couples. The newly
designed form altered the official state-prescribed form for the “Application for
Marriage License” and the “License and Certificate of Marriage” by eliminating
the terms “bride,” “groom,” and “unmarried man and unmarried woman,” and by
replacing them with the terms “first applicant,” “second applicant,” and
“unmarried individuals.” The revised form also contained a new warning at the
top of the form, advising applicants that “[b]y entering into marriage you may lose
some or all of the rights, protections and benefits you enjoy as a domestic partner”
4
The letter read in full: “Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the
Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the
Constitution of the State of California. Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the
California Constitution provides that ‘[a] person may not be . . . denied equal
protection of the laws.’ The California courts have interpreted the equal
protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men
and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals
are suspect. The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay
men and lesbians is invidious. The California courts have held that gender
discrimination is suspect and invidious as well. The Supreme Courts in other
states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit
discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and
obligations flowing from marriage. It is my belief that these decisions are
persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such
discrimination.
“Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution,
including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what
changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue
marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory
basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.”
7
and that “marriage of gay and lesbian couples may not be recognized as valid by
any jurisdiction other than San Francisco, and may not be recognized as valid by
any employer,” and encouraging same-sex couples “to seek legal advice regarding
the effect of entering into marriage.”5
The county clerk, using the altered forms, began issuing marriage licenses
to same-sex couples on February 12, 2004, and the county recorder thereafter
registered marriage certificates submitted on behalf of same-sex couples who had
received licenses from the city and had participated in marriage ceremonies. The
declaration of the county clerk, filed in this court on March 5, 2004, indicates that
as of that date, the clerk had issued more that 3,500 marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. In more recent filings, the city has indicated that approximately 4,000
same-sex marriages have been performed under licenses issued by the County
Clerk of the City and County of San Francisco.
On February 13, 2004, two separate actions were filed in San Francisco
County Superior Court seeking to halt the city’s issuance of marriage licenses to
same-sex couples and the solemnization and registration of marriages of such
couples. (Thomasson v. Newsom (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, 2004, No.
CGC-04-428794); Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and
5
The warning reads in full: “Please read this carefully prior to completing
the application: [¶] By entering into marriage you may lose some or all of the
rights, protections, and benefits you enjoy as a domestic partner, including, but not
limited to those rights, protections, and benefits afforded by State and local
government, and by your employer. If you are currently in a domestic partnership,
you are urged to seek legal advice regarding the potential loss of your rights,
protections, and benefits before entering into marriage. [¶] Marriage of gay and
lesbian couples may not be recognized as valid by any jurisdiction other than San
Francisco, and may not be recognized as valid by any employer. If you are a
same-gender couple, you are encouraged to seek legal advice regarding the effect
of entering into marriage.”
8
County of San Francisco (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, 2004, No. CPF-04-
50943 (hereafter Proposition 22 Legal Defense).) In each case, a request for an
immediate stay of the city’s actions was denied by the superior court after a
hearing.6
On February 27, 2004, the Attorney General filed in this court a petition for
an original writ of mandate, prohibition, certiorari, and/or other relief, and a
request for an immediate stay. The petition asserted that the actions of the city
officials in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and solemnizing and
registering the marriages of such couples are unlawful, and that the problems and
uncertainty created by the growing number of these marriages justify intervention
by this court. The petition pointed out that despite a directive issued by the state
Registrar of Vital Statistics, the San Francisco County Recorder had not ceased the
practice of registering marriage certificates submitted by same-sex couples on
forms other than those approved by the State of California, and that officials of the
federal Social Security Administration had raised questions regarding that
agency’s processing of name-change applications resulting from California
marriages — not confined to single-sex marriages — because of the uncertainty as
to whether certain marriage certificates issued in California are valid under state
law. Noting that “[t]he Attorney General has the constitutional duty to see that the
6
On February 17, 2004, the superior court, in addition to declining to grant
the request for an immediate stay, issued an alternative writ in Proposition 22
Legal Defense, directing the city to cease and desist issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples or performing marriage ceremonies for such couples, or show
cause why the city has not done so, and set a hearing on the show cause order for
March 29, 2004. On February 19, 2004, the city filed a cross-complaint for
declaratory relief against the State of California in Proposition 22 Legal Defense,
seeking a declaration that the California statutes that deny the issuance of marriage
licenses to same-sex couples are unconstitutional.
9
laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced” (see Cal. Const., art. V,
§ 13), the petition maintained that the existing “conflict and uncertainty, and the
potential for future ambiguity, instability, and inconsistent administration among
various jurisdictions and levels of government, present a legal issue of statewide
importance that warrants immediate intervention by this Court.” The petition
requested that this court issue an order (1) directing the local officials to comply
with the applicable statutes in issuing marriage licenses and certificates,
(2) declaring invalid the same-sex marriage licenses and certificates that have been
issued, and (3) directing the city to refund any fees collected in connection with
such licenses and certificates.
Anticipating that the respondent city officials likely would oppose the
petition by arguing that the applicable state laws are unconstitutional, the petition
maintained that such a claim could not justify the officials’ issuance of same-sex
marriage licenses in violation of state law “because article III, section 3.5 of the
California Constitution prohibits administrative agencies from declaring state laws
unconstitutional in the absence of an appellate court determination.” The petition
asserted that “[t]he county is a political subdivision of the state charged with
administering state government, and local registrars of vital statistics act as state
officers. The state’s agents at the local level simply cannot refuse to enforce state
law.”
Although the Attorney General’s petition acknowledged that the court
could grant the relief requested in the petition without reaching the substantive
question of the constitutionality of the California statutes limiting marriage to a
man and a woman, the petition urged that we also resolve the substantive
constitutional issue at this time, arguing that “[a]s the issues presented are pure
legal issues, and there is no need for the development of a factual record, these
issues are ready for this Court’s review.”
10
On February 25, 2004, two days prior to the filing of the petition in
Lockyer, the petition in Lewis was filed in this court. In Lewis, three residents and
taxpayers in the City and County of San Francisco sought a writ of mandate to
compel the county clerk to cease and desist issuing marriage licenses to couples
other than those who meet state law marriage requirements and on forms that do
not comply with state law license requirements, and also sought an immediate stay
pending the court’s determination of the petition.
After receiving the petitions in Lockyer and Lewis, we requested that the
city file an opposition to the petition in each case on or before March 5, 2004. The
city filed its opposition to the petitions on March 5, arguing that the provisions of
article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution do not apply to local officials
and that, in any event, under the supremacy clause of the United States
Constitution, California Constitution article III, section 3.5 could not properly be
applied to preclude a local official from refusing to enforce a statute that the
official believes violates the federal Constitution. With regard to the question of
the constitutionality of California’s statutory ban on same-sex marriages, the
opposition maintained that “the issue is one best left to the lower courts in the first
instance to undertake the extensive fact-finding that will be necessary.”7
On March 11, 2004, we issued an order in both Lockyer and Lewis directing
the city officials to show cause why a writ of mandate should not issue requiring
the officials to apply and abide by the current California marriage statutes in the
absence of a judicial determination that the statutory provisions are
7
The petition in Lewis — filed by parties who maintain that the existing
California marriage statutes are constitutional — similarly took the position that
“[t]he constitutionality of the marriage laws is an issue best left to full
development in the lower courts.”
11
unconstitutional. Pending our determination of these matters, we directed the
officials to enforce the existing marriage statutes and refrain from issuing marriage
licenses or certificates not authorized by such provisions. We also stayed all
proceedings in the two pending San Francisco County Superior Court cases (the
Proposition 22 Legal Defense action and the Thomasson v. Newsom action), but
specified that the stay “does not preclude the filing of a separate action in superior
court raising a substantive constitutional challenge to the current marriage
statutes.”
Our March 11 order also specified that the return to be filed by the city
officials in each case was to be limited “to the issue whether respondents are
exceeding or acting outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the
provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a
judicial determination that such provisions are unconstitutional,” and that in
addressing this issue, the return “should discuss not only the applicability and
effect of article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution” but also any other
constitutional or statutory provisions or legal doctrines that bear on the question
whether the city officials acted outside the scope of their authority in refusing to
comply with the applicable statutes in the absence of a judicial determination that
the statutes are unconstitutional.
Our March 11 order further established an expedited briefing schedule and
indicated that the court would hear oral argument in these matters at its late May
2004 or June 2004 oral argument calendar. After receiving the briefs filed by the
parties and numerous amici curiae, we requested that the parties file supplemental
letter briefs addressing several questions relating to the validity of the marriage
licenses and certificates of registry of marriage that already had been issued or
registered by city officials to or on behalf of same-sex couples. The supplemental
briefs were timely filed, and the cases were argued before this court on May 25,
12
2004. After oral argument, we filed an order consolidating the two cases for
decision.
II
It is well settled in California that “the Legislature has full control of the
subject of marriage and may fix the conditions under which the marital status may
be created or terminated. . . .” (McClure v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.3d 717, 728.)
“The regulation of marriage and divorce is solely within the province of the
Legislature, except as the same may be restricted by the Constitution.” (Beeler v.
Beeler (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 679, 682; see, e.g., Estate of DePasse (2002) 97
Cal.App.4th 92, 99.) In view of the primacy of the Legislature’s role in this area,
we begin by setting forth the relevant statutes relating to marriage that have some
bearing on the issue before us. As we shall see, the Legislature has dealt with the
subject of marriage in considerable detail.
As applicable to the issues presented by this case, the relevant statutes
dealing with marriage are contained in the Family Code and the Health and Safety
Code.
The provisions regarding the validity of marriage are set forth in Family
Code sections 300 to 310.
Section 300 provides in full: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out
of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties
capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute
marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and
solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425[8]
8
Family Code section 425 provides: “If no record of the solemnization of a
marriage previously contracted is known to exist, the parties may purchase a
License and Certificate of Declaration of Marriage from the county clerk in the
(footnote continued on next page)
13
and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).[9]” (Italics added.)
Section 301 provides: “An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older,
and an unmarried female of the age of 18 or older, and not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” (Italics added.)
Section 308.5 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in California.” (Italics added.)
In the opposition filed in this court, the city takes the position that neither
section 301 nor section 308.5 is relevant to the question whether current California
statutes limit marriages performed in California to marriages between a man and a
woman,10 but the city concedes that section 300, both by its terms and its purpose,
(footnote continued from previous page)
parties’ county of residence.” Family Code section 350 provides that “[b]efore . . .
declaring a marriage pursuant to Section 425, the parties shall first obtain a
marriage license from a county clerk.” As the Court of Appeal explained in Estate
of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 92, 104, “[t]he purpose of the [section 425]
procedure is to create a record of an otherwise unrecorded marriage, thus focusing
on the registration requirement, as opposed to the licensing requirement.” The
section 425 procedure has no bearing on the issues presented by this case.
9
Part 4 of division 3 of the Family Code (§§ 500-536) governs confidential
marriages. With respect to the issue presented in this case, the provisions
governing confidential marriages parallel the provisions governing ordinary
marriages. (Compare, e.g., Fam. Code, § 505 [specifying form of confidential
marriage license] with Fam. Code, § 355 [specifying form of ordinary marriage
license].)
10
With respect to section 301 — which, as noted above, provides that “an
unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the
age of 18 years or older, . . . are capable of consenting to and consummating
marriage” — the opposition filed in this court maintains that “the statute is silent
as to whom an unmarried male and an unmarried female may marry, and thus is
irrelevant.” Petitioners maintain, by contrast, that section 301 clearly
contemplates that a marriage will be consummated between an unmarried male
and unmarried female.
With regard to section 308.5 — which provides that “[o]nly marriage
(footnote continued on next page)
14
imposes such a limitation on marriages performed in California.11 Because we
agree that section 300 clearly establishes that current California statutory law
limits marriage to couples comprised of a man and a woman, we need not and do
not address the scope or effect of sections 301 and 308.5 in this case.
The Family Code provisions relating to marriage licenses and to the
certificate of registry of marriage are set forth in Family Code sections 350 to 360.
These statutes provide that “before entering a marriage, . . . the parties shall first
obtain a marriage license from a county clerk” (Fam. Code, § 350), and the
provisions state what information must be contained on the license (Fam. Code,
§ 351) and place the responsibility on the county clerk to ensure that the statutory
requirements for obtaining a marriage license are satisfied. (Fam. Code, § 354.)
The statutes also specifically provide that the forms for (1) the application for a
marriage license, (2) the marriage license, and (3) the certificate of registry of
marriage that are to be used by the county clerk and provided to the applicants
(footnote continued from previous page)
between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California” — the opposition
maintains that, in light of the provision’s history, “[t]his statute is irrelevant to the
case at hand because it addresses only out-of-state marriages.” Petitioners assert,
by contrast, that by specifying that only marriage between a man and woman is
“valid” or “recognized” in California, section 308.5 addresses both in-state and
out-of-state marriages.
11
The language in Family Code section 300 specifying that marriage is a
relation “between a man and a woman” was adopted by the Legislature in 1977,
when the provision was set forth in former section 4100 of the Civil Code. (Stats.
1977, ch. 339, § 1, p. 1295, introduced as Assem. Bill 607 (1977-1978 Reg.
Sess.).) The legislative history of the measure makes its objective clear. (See Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess) as
amended May 23, 1977, p. 1 [“The purpose of the bill is to prohibit persons of the
same sex from entering lawful marriage.”].) The provisions of Civil Code former
section 4100 were moved to Family Code section 300 when the Family Code was
enacted in 1992. (Stats. 1992, ch. 162, § 10, p. 474.)
15
“shall be prescribed by the State Department of Health Services.” (Fam. Code,
§§ 355, 359.)12
12
Family Code section 350 provides: “Before entering a marriage, or
declaring a marriage pursuant to Section 425, the parties shall first obtain a
marriage license from a county clerk.” (Italics added.)
Section 351 provides: “The marriage license shall show all of the
following: [¶] (a) The identity of the parties to the marriage. [¶] (b) The parties’
real and full names, and places of residence. [¶] (c) The parties’ ages.”
Section 354 provides: “(a) Each applicant for a marriage license may be
required to present authentic identification as to name. [¶] (b) For the purpose of
ascertaining the facts mentioned or required in this part, if the clerk deems it
necessary, the clerk may examine the applicants for a marriage license on oath at
the time of the application. The clerk shall reduce the examination to writing and
the applicants shall sign it. [¶] (c) If necessary, the clerk may request additional
documentary proof as to the accuracy of the facts stated. [¶] (d) Applicants for a
marriage license shall not be required to state, for any purpose, their race or
color.” (Italics added.)
Section 355 provides: “(a) The forms for the application for a marriage
license and the marriage license shall be prescribed by the State Department of
Health Services, and shall be adapted to set forth the facts required in this part.
[¶] (b) The form for the application for a marriage license shall include an
affidavit on the back, which the applicants shall sign, affirming that they have
received the brochure provided for in Section 358. [¶] (c) The affidavit required
by subdivision (b) shall state:
AFFIDAVIT
I acknowledge that I have received the brochure titled _________________
_________________ __________
Signature of Bride Date
__________________ ___________
Signature of Groom Date
[End of section 355.]” (Italics added.)
Section 359 provides: “(a) Applicants for a marriage license shall obtain
from the county clerk issuing the license, a certificate of registry of marriage. [¶]
(b) The contents of the certificate of registry are as provided in Division 9
(commencing with Section 10000) of the Health and Safety Code. [¶] (c) The
certificate of registry shall be filled out by the applicants, in the presence of the
county clerk issuing the marriage license, and shall be presented to the person
solemnizing the marriage. [¶] (d) The person solemnizing the marriage shall
complete the registry and shall cause to be entered on the certificate of registry the
(footnote continued on next page)
16
Provisions regarding the solemnization of marriage are set forth in Family
Code sections 400 to 425. These statutes contain a list of the numerous persons
who may solemnize a marriage under California law (Fam. Code, § 400), and
require the person solemnizing a marriage (1) to require the applicants to present
the marriage license to him or her prior to solemnization (Fam. Code, § 421),
(2) to sign and endorse upon or attach to the marriage license a statement, “in the
form prescribed by the State Department of Health Services,” setting forth
specified information (Fam. Code, § 422), and (3) to return the marriage license,
with the requisite endorsement, to the county recorder of the county in which the
license was issued within 30 days after the marriage ceremony. (Fam. Code,
§ 423.)13
(footnote continued from previous page)
signature and address of one witness to the marriage ceremony. [¶] (e) The
certificate of registry shall be returned by the person solemnizing the marriage to
the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued within 30 days
after the ceremony. [¶] (f) As used in this division, ‘returned’ means presented to
the appropriate person in person, or postmarked, before the expiration of the
specified time period.” (Italics added.)
13
Family Code section 421 provides in relevant part: “Before solemnizing a
marriage, the person solemnizing the marriage shall require the presentation of the
marriage license. . . .”
Section 422 provides in relevant part: “The person solemnizing a marriage
shall make, sign, and endorse upon or attach to the marriage license a statement, in
the form prescribed by the State Department of Health Services, showing all of the
following: [¶] (a) The fact, date (month, day, year), and place (city and county) of
solemnization. [¶] (b) The names and places of residence of one or more witnesses
to the ceremony. [¶] (c) The official position of the person solemnizing the
marriage . . . .” (Italics added.)
Section 423 provides: “The person solemnizing the marriage shall return
the marriage license, endorsed as required in Section 422, to the county recorder
of the county in which the license was issued within 30 days after the ceremony.”
(Italics added.)
17
The Health and Safety Code contains numerous additional provisions
prescribing in detail the procedures governing marriage licenses and marriage
certificates as part of the state’s registration and maintenance of vital statistics.
These statutes designate the California Director of Health Services as the State
Registrar of Vital Statistics (Health & Saf. Code, § 102175) and provide that
“[e]ach live birth, fetal death, death, and marriage that occurs in this state shall be
registered as provided in this part on the prescribed certificate forms . . . .”
(Health & Saf. Code, § 102100, italics added.) The statutes also specify that “[t]he
State Registrar is charged with the execution of this part in this state, and has
supervisory power over local registrars, so that there shall be uniform compliance
with all the requirements of this part” (Health & Saf. Code, § 102180, italics
added), that “[t]he Attorney General will assist in the enforcement of this part
upon request of the State Registrar” (Health & Saf. Code, § 102195), and that
“[t]he State Registrar shall prescribe and furnish all record forms for use in
carrying out the purpose of this part, . . . and no record forms or formats other
than those prescribed shall be used.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 102200, italics
added.)14 The code also contains a specific provision pertaining to all of the
official forms related to marriage, which expressly provides that “[t]he forms for
the application for license to marry, the certificate of registry of marriage
including the license to marry, and the marriage certificate shall be prescribed by
the State Registrar.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 103125, italics added.)
The relevant Health and Safety Code statutes also specify that “[t]he county
recorder is the local registrar of marriages and shall perform all the duties of the
14
The Health and Safety Code contains a number of additional provisions that
demonstrate the state’s overriding interest in the uniform application of the state’s
marriage laws. (See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102205, 102215.)
18
local registrar of marriages” (Health & Saf. Code, § 102285), and that “[e]ach
local registrar is hereby charged with the enforcement of this part in his or her
registration district under the supervision and direction of the State Registrar and
shall make an immediate report to the State Registrar of any violation of this law
coming to his or her knowledge.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 102295, italics added.)
The statutes also provide that “[t]he local registrar of marriages shall carefully
examine each certificate before acceptance for registration and, if it is incomplete
or unsatisfactory, he or she shall require any further information to be furnished as
may be necessary to make the record satisfactory before acceptance for
registration.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 102310.)
Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics
(who, as noted, is also the California Director of Health Services) has prescribed a
form ― Department of Health Services Form VS-117 ― which serves as the
application for license to marry, the license to marry, and the certificate of registry
of marriage. One of the principal California family law practice guides describes
the relevant portions of the form as follows: “The first three sections of the form
(Groom Personal Data, Bride Personal Data, and Affidavit) constitute the
application for license to marry. The personal data sections are filled out by the
court clerk, using information and/or documents provided by the applicants. The
bride and groom must both sign the application (see lines 23 [entitled Signature of
Groom], 24 [entitled Signature of Bride]) after the personal data sections have
been completed. The fourth section of the form (lines 25A-25F) constitutes the
license to marry. This section is to be completed by the clerk.” (1 Kirkland et al.,
Cal. Family Law: Practices and Procedure (2d ed. 2003) Validity of Marriage,
Forms, § 10.100[1], p. 10-80.)
The city acknowledges that the county clerk altered the form prescribed by
the State Registrar of Vital Statistics by replacing references to “bride,” “groom,”
19
and “unmarried man and unmarried woman” with references to “first applicant,”
“second applicant,” and “unmarried individuals,” that the county clerk further
issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that the county recorder
registered certificates of registry of marriage for such couples, despite the
knowledge of these officials that the current California statutes do not authorize
such actions. The city defends the actions of these officials on the ground that
they were based on the belief that the statutory restriction in California law
limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. The principal
question before us is whether the local officials exceeded or acted outside of their
authority in taking these actions.
III
In light of several questions raised by the briefs filed by the city in this
court, we begin with a brief discussion of the respective roles of state and local
officials with regard to the enforcement of the marriage statutes (in particular, the
issuance of marriage licenses and the registering of marriage certificates), and of
the nature of the duties of local officials under the applicable statutes.
A
As is demonstrated by the above review of the relevant statutory provisions,
the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive scheme regulating marriage in
California, establishing the substantive standards for eligibility for marriage and
setting forth in detail the procedures to be followed and the public officials who
are entrusted with carrying out these procedures. In light of both the historical
understanding reflected in this statutory scheme and the statutes’ repeated
emphasis on the importance of having uniform rules and procedures apply
throughout the state to the subject of marriage, there can be no question but that
marriage is a matter of “statewide concern” rather than a “municipal affair” (see
Cal. Const. art. XI, §§ 4, 5, 6; see, e.g., California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v.
20
City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 17), and that state statutes dealing with
marriage prevail over any conflicting local charter provision, ordinance, or
practice.
Furthermore, the relevant statutes also reveal that the only local officials to
whom the state has granted authority to act with regard to marriage licenses and
marriage certificates are the county clerk and the county recorder. The statutes do
not authorize the mayor of a city (or city and county, as is San Francisco) or any
other comparable local official to take any action with regard to the process of
issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates. Although a mayor
may have authority under a local charter to supervise and control the actions of a
county clerk or county recorder with regard to other subjects, a mayor has no
authority to expand or vary the authority of a county clerk or county recorder to
grant marriage licenses or register marriage certificates under the governing state
statutes, or to direct those officials to act in contravention of those statutes. (See,
e.g., Coulter v. Pool (1921) 187 Cal. 181, 187 [“A public officer is a public agent
and as such acts only on behalf of his principal . . . . The most general
characteristic of a public officer . . . is that a public duty is delegated and entrusted
to him, as agent, the performance of which is an exercise of a part of the
governmental functions of the particular political unit for which he, as agent, is
acting.” (Italics added.)]; Sacramento v. Simmons (1924) 66 Cal.App. 18, 24-25
[when state statute designated local health officers as local registrars of vital
statistics, “to the extent [such officials] are discharging such duties they are acting
as state officers. They are state officers performing state functions and are under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the state registrar of vital statistics” (italics added)];
Boss v. Lewis (1917) 33 Cal.App. 792, 794 [city clerk, when acting as local
registrar of vital statistics under state law, is state officer].)
21
Accordingly, to the extent the mayor purported to “direct” or “instruct” the
county clerk and the county recorder to take specific actions with regard to the
issuance of marriage licenses or the registering of marriage certificates, we
conclude he exceeded the scope of his authority. (See, e.g., Sacramento v.
Simmons, supra, 66 Cal.App.18, 24-28.)15 Furthermore, if the county clerk or the
county recorder acted in this case in contravention of the applicable statutes solely
at the behest of the mayor and not on the basis of the official’s own determination
that the statutes are unconstitutional, such official also would appear to have acted
improperly by abdicating the statutory responsibility imposed directly on him or
her as a state officer. (See, e.g., California Radioactive Materials Management
Forum v. Department of Health Services (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 841, 874,
disapproved on another point in Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of
California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 305, fn. 5 [“An executive or administrative
officer can no more abdicate responsibility for executing the laws than the
Legislature can be permitted to usurp it.”].)
Although it is not clear that the county clerk and the county recorder acted
on the basis of each individual official’s own opinion or determination as to the
unconstitutionality of the applicable statutes (see fn. 15, ante), and the actions of
these officials might be vulnerable to challenge on that ground alone, it is
15
In the mayor’s February 10 letter to the county clerk, the mayor simply
“request[ed]” the clerk to determine what changes should be made to the forms
and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses. In the opposition
and supplemental opposition filed in this court, however, the city states that the
mayor “directed the County Clerk’s Office to arrange for the issuance of marriage
licenses to same-sex couples” and that “Alfaro was not the decisionmaker with
respect to San Francisco’s issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She
and the other employees within the County Clerk’s Office issued marriage licenses
to such couples because Mayor Newsom told them to do so.”
22
nonetheless appropriate in this case to address the question whether a public
official may refuse to enforce a statute when he or she determines the statute to be
unconstitutional. The city maintains that when, as here, a public official has
asserted in a mandate proceeding that a statutory provision that the official has
refused to enforce is unconstitutional, a court may not issue a writ of mandate to
compel the official to perform a ministerial duty prescribed by the statute unless
the court first determines that the statute is constitutional. If, however, the
controlling rule of law requires such an official to carry out a ministerial duty
dictated by statute unless and until the statute has been judicially determined to be
unconstitutional, it follows that such an official cannot compel a court to rule on
the constitutional issue by refusing to apply the statute and that a writ of mandate
properly may issue, without a judicial determination of the statute’s
constitutionality, directing the official to comply with the statute unless and until
the statute has been judicially determined to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, in
deciding whether a writ of mandate should issue, it is appropriate to determine
whether the city officials were obligated to comply with the ministerial duty
prescribed by statute without regard to their view of the constitutionality of the
statute.
B
In addition, we believe it is appropriate to clarify at the outset that, under
the statutes reviewed above, the duties of the county clerk and the county recorder
at issue in this case properly are characterized as ministerial rather than
discretionary. When the substantive and procedural requirements established by
the state marriage statutes are satisfied, the county clerk and the county recorder
each has the respective mandatory duty to issue a marriage license and record a
certificate of registry of marriage; in that circumstance, the officials have no
discretion to withhold a marriage license or refuse to record a marriage certificate.
23
By the same token, when the statutory requirements have not been met, the county
clerk and the county recorder are not granted any discretion under the statutes to
issue a marriage license or register a certificate of registry of marriage. As we
stated recently in Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist.
(2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 916: “ ‘A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is
required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal
authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning such act’s
propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exists.’ ”
Thus, the issue before us is whether under California law the authority of a
local executive official, charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a state
statute, includes the authority to disregard the statutory requirements when the
official is of the opinion the provision is unconstitutional but there has been no
judicial determination of unconstitutionality.
IV
In the opposition and supplemental opposition filed in this court, the city
maintains that a local executive official’s general duty and authority to apply the
law includes the authority to refuse to apply a statute whenever the official
believes it to be unconstitutional, even in the absence of a judicial determination of
unconstitutionality and even when the duty prescribed by the statute is ministerial.
The city asserts that such authority flows from every public official’s duty “to
conform [his or her] acts to constitutional norms.” The Attorney General argues,
by contrast, that it is well established that a duly enacted statute is presumed to be
constitutional, and he maintains that “the prospect of local governmental officials
unilaterally defying state laws with which they disagree is untenable and
inconsistent with the precepts of our legal system.”
As we shall explain, we conclude that a local public official, charged with
the ministerial duty of enforcing a statute, generally does not have the authority, in
24
the absence of a judicial determination of unconstitutionality, to refuse to enforce
the statute on the basis of the official’s view that it is unconstitutional.16
A
In the initial petitions filed in this matter, petitioners relied primarily on the
provisions of article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution (hereafter
generally referred to as article III, section 3.5) in maintaining that the challenged
actions of the local officials were improper.
Article III, section 3.5 provides in full: “An administrative agency,
including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative
statute, has no power: [¶] (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to
enforce a statute, on the basis of its being unconstitutional unless an appellate
court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional. [¶] (b) To
declare a statute unconstitutional. [¶] (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to
refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations
prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or
federal regulations.”
16
As indicated, the issue presented in this case is purely whether a local
official may refuse to apply a statute solely on the basis of the official’s view that
the statute is unconstitutional. There is no claim here that the officials acted as
they did because of questions regarding the proper interpretation of the applicable
statutes or because of doubts as to which of two or more competing statutory
provisions to apply. (Cf. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Public
Utilities Commission (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 881, 887-889.) Here, the officials
acknowledge that the current California statutes limit marriage to a union between
a man and a woman, and concede that they refused to apply the relevant statutory
provisions solely because of a belief that this statutory requirement is
unconstitutional.
25
Article III, section 3.5 does not define the term “administrative agency” as
used in this constitutional provision. Petitioners maintain that in light of the
purpose of the provision, the term “administrative agency” should be interpreted to
include local executive officials, particularly local officials who are acting as state
officers in carrying out a function prescribed by state statute.
Article III, section 3.5 was proposed by the Legislature and placed before
the voters as Proposition 5 at the June 6, 1978 election, and was adopted by the
electorate. The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 5, contained in the election
brochure distributed to voters prior to the election, stated in part: “Every statute is
enacted only after a long and exhaustive process, involving as many as four open
legislative committee meetings where members of the public can express their
views. If the agencies question the constitutionality of a measure, they can present
testimony at the public hearing during legislative consideration. Committee action
is followed by full consideration by both houses of the Legislature. [¶] Before the
Governor signs or vetoes a bill, he receives analyses from the agencies which will
be called upon to implement its provisions. If the Legislature has passed the bill
over the objections of the agency, the Governor is not likely to ignore valid
apprehensions of his department, as he is Chief Executive of the State and is
responsible for most of its administrative functions. [¶] Once the law has been
enacted, however, it does not make sense for an administrative agency to refuse to
carry out its legal responsibilities because the agency’s members have decided the
law is invalid. Yet, administrative agencies are so doing with increasing
frequency. These agencies are all part of the Executive Branch of government,
charged with the duty of enforcing the law. [¶] The Courts, however, constitute
the proper forum for determination of the validity of State statutes. There is no
justification for forcing private parties to go to Court in order to require agencies
of government to perform the duties they have sworn to perform. [¶] Proposition
26
5 would prohibit the State agency from refusing to act under such circumstances,
unless an appellate court has ruled the statute is invalid. [¶] We urge you to
support this Proposition 5 in order to insure that appointed officials do not refuse
to carry out their duties by usurping the authority of the Legislature and the
Courts. Your passage of Proposition 5 will help preserve the concept of the
separation of powers so wisely adopted by our founding fathers.” (Ballot Pamp.
Primary Elec. (June 6, 1978) argument in favor of Prop. 5, p. 26.) Petitioners
maintain that the rationale set forth in this ballot argument applies to local
executive officials as well as state administrative agencies, and thus that the term
“administrative agency” as used in the provision properly should be construed to
apply to local executive officials.
The city vigorously contests petitioners’ suggested interpretation of article
III, section 3.5, maintaining that this provision is addressed only to state, not local,
administrative agencies, and that in any event the local officials here at issue are
not an “administrative agency” within the meaning of article III, section 3.5. The
city concedes there may be some anomaly in article III, section 3.5’s application
only to state administrative agencies and not to local executive officials, but insists
such an anomaly “would not be license to rewrite Section 3.5 and give it a
meaning nobody had in mind when it was passed.” The city argues that “[t]he
voters were responding to a specific problem [involving state administrative
agencies] when they enacted Section 3.5, and they chose specific means to address
that problem. In the end, if some in hindsight question the wisdom of that choice,
the answer lies in amending California’s Constitution, not judicially rewriting it.”
In sum, the city asserts that the existing terms of article III, section 3.5 cannot
properly be interpreted to include local executive officials.
Although one Court of Appeal decision contains language directly
supporting petitioners’ argument that article III, section 3.5’s reference to
27
administrative agencies properly is interpreted to include local executive officials
such as county clerks (Billig v. Voges (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 962, 969 (Billig)),
the city maintains that the question of the proper scope of article III, section 3.5
never was raised in Billig, and further that the pertinent language in Billig clearly
is dictum. Accordingly, the city argues the appellate court’s decision in Billig
cannot properly be viewed as resolving the issue whether article III, section 3.5
applies to local officials.17
17 In
Billig, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d 962, the plaintiffs had submitted a
referendum petition to the city clerk, but the clerk refused to process the petition
or submit it to the city council because the petition did not include the full text of
the challenged ordinance, as required by section 4052 of the Elections Code. The
plaintiffs then sought a writ of mandate in superior court against the clerk,
claiming that this official’s authority was limited to determining whether there
were sufficient signatures on the petition and did not extend to rejecting a petition
for noncompliance with section 4052. The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs
and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The appellate court explained in Billig that the city clerk’s duty “is limited
to the ministerial function of ascertaining whether the procedural requirements for
submitting a petition have been met” (Billig, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at pp. 968-
969), and found that Elections Code section 4052 “involves purely procedural
requirements for submitting a referendum petition. Therefore a city clerk who
refuses to accept a petition for noncompliance with the statute is only performing a
ministerial function involving no exercise of discretion.” (Billig, at p. 969.)
Stating that the city clerk lacked discretion not to enforce the statutory
provision, the Court of Appeal discussed article III, section 3.5 and observed:
“Administrative agencies, including public officials in charge of such agencies,
are expressly forbidden from declaring statutes unenforceable, unless an appellate
court has determined that a particular statute is unconstitutional. (Cal. Const.
art. III, § 3.5.) [Elections Code] [s]ection 4052 has not been declared
unconstitutional by an appellate court in this state. Consequently, the offices of
city clerks throughout the state are mandated by the [C]onstitution to implement
and enforce the statute’s procedural requirements. In the instant case, respondent
had the clear and present ministerial duty to refuse to process appellants’ petition
because it did not comply with the procedural requirements of section 4052.”
(Billig, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 969, italics added.)
Although the italicized language in Billig supports petitioners’ position
(footnote continued on next page)
28
As we shall explain, we have determined that we need not (and thus do not)
decide in this case whether the actions of the local executive officials here at issue
fall within the scope or reach of article III, section 3.5, because we conclude that
prior to the adoption of article III, section 3.5, it already was established under
California law — as in the overwhelming majority of other states (see, post, at
pp. 57-61) — that a local executive official, charged with a ministerial duty,
generally lacks authority to determine that a statute is unconstitutional and on that
basis refuse to apply the statute. Because the adoption of article III, section 3.5
plainly did not grant or expand the authority of local executive officials to
determine that a statute is unconstitutional and to act in contravention of the
statute’s terms on the basis of such a determination, we conclude that the city
(footnote continued from previous page)
with regard to the scope of article III, section 3.5, there is no indication that any
party in Billig raised the argument that article III, section 3.5 applies only to state
agencies and not to local agencies or officials, and thus the court in Billig had no
occasion to resolve that issue. Moreover, in any event the discussion of article III,
section 3.5 in Billig clearly was dictum, because an analysis and resolution of the
scope of that constitutional provision not only was unnecessary to the decision in
Billig, but arguably was entirely irrelevant. The plaintiffs in Billig had not asked
the city clerk to refrain from applying Elections Code section 4052 on the ground
that the statute was unconstitutional, and the city clerk’s decision not to accept the
petition did not involve consideration of whether he had the authority to determine
the provision’s constitutionality; moreover, the plaintiffs did not raise any
constitutional challenge to section 4052 in the trial court or on appeal. Instead, the
plaintiffs in Billig simply argued that the applicable provisions of section 4052 did
not authorize a city clerk (as opposed to a court) to reject a petition for
noncompliance with that statute, and that only a court was authorized to disqualify
a petition for nonconformance with the requirements of section 4052.
Because the provisions of article III, section 3.5 did not bear on the
question before the court in Billig, we believe it would be inappropriate to accord
much significance to the cited language in that decision.
29
officials do not possess this authority and that the actions challenged in the present
case were unauthorized and invalid.
B
We begin with a few basic legal principles that were well established prior
to the adoption of article III, section 3.5 in 1978.
First, one of the fundamental principles of our constitutional system of
government is that a statute, once duly enacted, “is presumed to be constitutional.
Unconstitutionality must be clearly shown, and doubts will be resolved in favor of
its validity.” (7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law,
§ 58, pp. 102-103 [citing, among numerous other authorities, In re Madera
Irrigation District (1891) 92 Cal. 296, 308; San Francisco v. Industrial Acc. Com.
(1920) 183 Cal. 273, 280; People v. Globe Grain and Mill. Co. (1930) 211 Cal.
121, 127].)
Second, it is equally well established that when, as here, a public official’s
authority to act in a particular area derives wholly from statute, the scope of that
authority is measured by the terms of the governing statute. “It is well settled in
this state and elsewhere, that when a statute prescribes the particular method in
which a public officer, acting under a special authority, shall perform his duties,
the mode is the measure of the power.” (Cowell v. Martin (1872) 43 Cal. 605,
613-614; see, e.g., County of Alpine v. County of Tuolumne (1958) 49 Cal.2d 787,
797; California State Restaurant Assn v. Whitlow (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 340,
346-347 [“[a]dministrative bodies and officers have only such powers as have
expressly or impliedly been conferred upon them by the Constitution or by
statute.”].)
The city has not identified any provision in the California Constitution or in
the applicable statutes that purports to grant the county clerk or the county
recorder (or any other local official) the authority to determine the
30
constitutionality of the statutes each public official has a ministerial duty to
enforce. Instead, the city’s position appears to be that a public executive official’s
duty to follow the law (including the Constitution) includes the implied or inherent
authority to refuse to follow an applicable statute whenever the official personally
believes the statute to be unconstitutional, even though there has been no judicial
determination of the statute’s unconstitutionality and despite the existence of the
rule that a duly enacted statute is presumed to be constitutional.
As we shall see, the California authorities that were in place prior to the
adoption of article III, section 3.5, do not support the city’s position.
C
Although in this case we need not determine the scope of article III, section
3.5, the historical background that led to the proposal and adoption of that
constitutional provision in 1978 nonetheless provides a useful starting point for
our analysis. As this court explained in Reese v. Kizer (1988) 46 Cal.3d 996, 1002,
“[a]rticle III, section 3.5, . . .was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the
Legislature in apparent response to this court’s decision in Southern Pac.
Transportation v. Public Utilities Com. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 308 [(hereafter Southern
Pacific]), in which the majority held that the Public Utilities Commission had the
power to declare a state statute unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the decision in
Southern Pacific is an appropriate place to begin.
In Southern Pacific, the plaintiff railroad company sought review of two
decisions of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in which the PUC held that
section 1202.3 of the Public Utilities Code, a statute enacted in 1971, was
unconstitutional. Section 1202.3 was one of a number of statutes in the Public
Utilities Code dealing with railroad crossings. With respect to private or farm
railroad crossings, Public Utilities Code section 7537 (1) granted “the owner of
adjoining lands the right to private or farm crossings necessary or convenient for
31
egress or ingress” (Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 311), (2) provided that
the railroad must maintain the crossings, and (3) granted the PUC the authority to
fix and assess the cost of such crossings. With respect to railroad crossings on
public or publicly used roads, Public Utilities Code section 1202 gave the PUC the
exclusive power “to regulate public or publicly used road or highway crossings,
including locating, maintaining, protecting, and closing them” (Southern Pacific,
supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 312), and further granted the PUC the authority to allocate
costs among the railroad and the affected public entities responsible for
maintaining the public or publicly used road, including any costs involved in
closing a crossing.
Public Utilities Code section 1202.3, the statute at issue in Southern
Pacific, provided, in turn, that in any proceeding under Public Utilities Code
section 1202 “involving a publicly used road or highway not on a publicly
maintained road system,” the PUC could apportion costs to the public entity if the
PUC found “(a) express dedication and acceptance of the road or (b) a judicial
determination of implied dedication.” (Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d at
p. 312.) If neither condition was found, section 1202.3 provided that the PUC
“shall order the crossing abolished by physical closing.” Section 1202.3 further
provided that “the railroad shall in no event be required to bear improvement costs
‘in excess of what it would be required to bear in connection with the
improvement of a public street or highway crossing.’ ” (Southern Pacific, supra,
18 Cal.3d at pp. 312-313.)
In Southern Pacific, the PUC concluded in an administrative proceeding
that Public Utilities Code section 1202.3 was unconstitutional because it
unlawfully delegated the state’s police power to private litigants by granting
private litigants absolute discretion to require the closing of a railroad crossing
merely by commencing a proceeding under Public Utilities Code section 1202.
32
The PUC’s conclusion was based in part on its determination that under section
1202.3, once the PUC found that there had been neither an express dedication and
acceptance of the publicly used road, nor a judicial determination of an implied
dedication of the road, the PUC had no alternative but to order the crossing closed
and to require the railroad to pay for the closing. (Southern Pacific, supra, 18
Cal.3d at p. 313.)
On review, this court unanimously disagreed with the PUC’s constitutional
determination. Observing that Public Utilities Code section 1202.3 provided, in its
introductory phrase, that the statute applied “in any proceeding under Section
1202,” the court in Southern Pacific reasoned that “the Legislature has declared
that section 1202.3 is an exception to the former section and that the provisions for
cost allocation and closing crossings in the latter section are only applicable when
the commission would otherwise have ordered improvement of a crossing
pursuant to the former section. The standard for compelling crossing
improvement implicit in section 1202 is obviously public convenience and
necessity, including safety concerns [citations], and this standard must be read into
section 1202.3. [¶] Thus, before the commission may close a crossing under
section 1202.3, it must not only find public use and lack of requisite dedication,
but also find that necessity and convenience preclude continued use of the crossing
in its existing condition. Such findings — rather than mere commencement of a
proceeding under section 1202 — is the basis for closing a crossing under section
1202.3. [¶] The function of the private litigant within the statutory framework is
merely to call the commission’s attention to the need for improving or closing a
crossing and perhaps to urge action on the commission.” (Southern Pacific, supra,
18 Cal.3d at p. 314, italics added.)
As noted, in Southern Pacific all of the justices of this court agreed that the
PUC had erred in concluding that Public Utilities Code section 1202.3 was
33
unconstitutional. Although the briefs filed in this court in Southern Pacific did not
raise any question regarding the authority of the PUC to determine the
constitutionality of section 1202.3,18 and the majority in Southern Pacific did not
address that question in the text of the opinion, Justice Mosk authored a vigorous
concurring and dissenting opinion in Southern Pacific, arguing strongly that
neither the PUC nor any other administrative agency “may declare a duly enacted
statute unconstitutional,” and that “it is incongruous for the will of the people of
the state, reflected by their elected legislators, to be thwarted by a governmental
body which exists only to implement that will.” (Southern Pacific, supra, 18
Cal.3d at p. 315 (conc. & dis. opn. by Mosk, J.).)
Justice Mosk’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Southern Pacific
acknowledged that a prior California decision — Walker v. Munro (1960) 178
Cal.App.2d 67 (hereafter Walker) — had held that an administrative agency that
has been granted judicial or quasi-judicial power by the California Constitution (a
type of entity commonly referred to as a “constitutional agency”)19 has the
authority to consider the constitutionality of a statute in the course of its quasi-
judicial proceedings. Justice Mosk suggested, however, that Walker had been
“indirectly criticized and implicitly disapproved” (Southern Pacific, supra, 18
18
Indeed, in the petition filed in this court, the petitioner in Southern Pacific
expressly stated that it did “not question the authority of the Commission, which
has quasi judicial powers and is a court of special jurisdiction, to declare and hold
a statute to be unconstitutional.”
19
See, e.g., Brice v. Dept. of Alcoholic Bev. Control (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d
315, 320 (“[The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control] is a constitutional
agency that has succeeded to some of the powers of the State Board of
Equalization in alcoholic beverage control matters. Being an agency upon which
the Constitution has conferred limited judicial powers, its decisions on factual
matters must be affirmed if there is substantial evidence to support them.”).
34
Cal.3d at p. 316 (conc. & dis. opn. by Mosk, J.)) in State of California v. Superior
Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 250-251 (hereafter State of California v. Superior
Court (Veta)), and he took issue with “the debatable premise that any and all
‘judicial power’ inherently entails the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.”
(Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 317.) Relying upon language in
numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court indicating that an
administrative agency or executive official has no power to adjudicate
constitutional issues (id. at p. 316), and decisions from other jurisdictions holding
“that administrative agencies lack the powers appropriated in this case” (ibid.),
Justice Mosk concluded that the extensive powers granted by the California
Constitution to the PUC did not include the power to declare a statute
unconstitutional and to refuse to apply it.
The majority in Southern Pacific responded to Justice Mosk’s concurring
and dissenting opinion in a lengthy footnote. (See Southern Pacific, supra, 18
Cal.3d 308, 311-312, fn. 2.) The initial portion of the footnote contains some
broad language that could be read to support the conclusion that the duty of any
administrative agency or public official to obey the Constitution affords such
agency or official the authority to determine the constitutional validity of statutes
the agency or official is charged with enforcing. The majority in Southern Pacific,
however, ultimately rested its holding that the PUC had the authority to determine
the constitutional validity of statutes on the circumstance that the California
Constitution grants broad judicial or quasi-judicial power to the PUC.
The majority in Southern Pacific stated in this regard: “[T]he Constitution
and statutes of this state grant the commission wide administrative, legislative, and
judicial powers. [Citations.] The Legislature has limited the judiciary from
interfering with the commission by restricting review to the Supreme Court and by
additionally restricting review to determining ‘whether the commission has
35
regularly pursued its authority, including a determination of whether the order or
decision under review violates any right of the petitioner under the Constitution of
the United States or of this State.’ (Italics added; [citations].) Public Utilities
Code section 1732 provides corporations and individuals may not raise matters in
any court not presented to the commission on petition for rehearing, reflecting,
when read with the judicial review sections, legislative determination that all
issues must be presented to the commission. Under the broad powers granted it,
the commission may determine the validity of statutes.” (Southern Pacific, supra,
18 Cal.3d at pp. 311-312, fn. 2, italics added.)
This review of the decision in Southern Pacific demonstrates that there was
a significant disagreement in this court on the particular question whether a so-
called constitutional agency (like the PUC), that has been granted the authority to
exercise quasi-judicial power by the California Constitution, has the authority to
determine that a statute the agency is called upon to apply is unconstitutional and
need not be followed. We are unaware, however, of any case, either prior to or
subsequent to Southern Pacific, that suggests that under the California
Constitution a local executive official such as a county clerk, who is charged with
the ministerial duty to enforce a statute, has the authority to exercise judicial
power by determining whether a statute is unconstitutional.
The case of Walker, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d 67, cited (and criticized) in
Justice Mosk’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Southern Pacific, appears to
be the first case in California to address the question whether an administrative
agency has the authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute that the
agency is required to enforce. In Walker, the plaintiffs were retail liquor dealers
who had been charged in an administrative proceeding before the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control with violating the fair trade provisions of the
California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. While the administrative proceeding
36
was pending, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action in superior court
against the administrative officials, seeking a declaration that the fair trade
provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act were unconstitutional, and an
order enjoining the officials from enforcing those provisions. The trial court in
Walker granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, relying upon the
circumstance that the same constitutional issue had been raised in the pending
administrative proceeding and upon the trial court’s conclusion “that it is more
expeditious and proper that the Department rule on the question before the court is
required to rule on it.” (178 Cal.App.2d at p. 70.)
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the exhaustion of remedies doctrine
upon which the trial court had relied was inapplicable, because the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control “does not have the power . . . to decide constitutional
questions.” (Walker, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d at p. 73.) In rejecting this contention,
the Court of Appeal in Walker began by referring to the applicable provision of the
California Constitution that empowers the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals
Board to review questions “ ‘whether the department has proceeded without or in
excess of its jurisdiction, whether the department has proceeded in the manner
required by law, whether the decision is supported by the findings, and whether
the findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.’
(Cal. Const., art. XX, § 22.)” (178 Cal.App.2d at p. 73.) The court in Walker then
observed: “The department and the Appeals Board are thus constitutional agencies
upon which limited judicial powers have been conferred. [Citations.]” (Ibid.,
italics added.)
In response to the plaintiffs’ claim in Walker that the department only could
make findings of fact and that the appeals board only was empowered “to review
certain questions of law, which are only procedural” (Walker, supra, 178
Cal.App.2d at p. 74), the court in Walker stated: “However, there does not appear
37
to be any basis for so limiting the grant of power to the Appeals Board. The
Appeals Board may determine whether the department acted within its
jurisdiction. In United Insurance Co. v. Maloney [(1954)] 127 Cal.App.2d [155,]
157, the court stated: ‘A charge of unconstitutional action goes to the very
jurisdiction of the administrative officer or body to entertain the proceeding . . . .’
[Citation.] This would also seem applicable to a charge that the statute which the
agency is seeking to enforce is unconstitutional.” (Walker, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d
at p. 74.)
Accordingly, in concluding that the administrative agency in that case had
the authority to determine, at least in the first instance, the question whether the
fair trade statutes were unconstitutional, the court in Walker specifically relied
upon the circumstance that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board had
been granted the authority by the California Constitution to exercise limited
judicial power.20
As noted in Justice Mosk’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Southern
Pacific, this court held in State of California v. Superior Court (Veta), supra, 12
20
The significance attached by the court in Walker to the California
Constitution’s grant of judicial power to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals
Board is confirmed by the distinction the Walker decision drew between the case
before it and a then recent decision of the California Supreme Court that was
heavily relied upon by the plaintiffs. The court in Walker explained: “County of
Alpine v. County of Tuolumne (1958) 49 Cal.2d 787, referred to extensively by
plaintiffs, is not in point. There the county of Alpine brought an action to
determine its boundaries with defendant counties. Judgment of dismissal was
reversed. Defendants asserted that the county of Alpine had not exhausted an
administrative remedy before the State Lands Commission. But the court held that
the agency [the State Lands Commission] was empowered only to ‘survey and
mark’ boundaries. . . . [I]t was without jurisdiction to make judicial
determinations of boundaries and therefore the county of Alpine could properly
maintain its action.” (Walker, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d at p. 73, italics added.)
38
Cal.3d 237, some years after the appellate court’s decision in Walker, that a
plaintiff seeking a declaration that the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act
of 1972 was unconstitutional was not required to pursue that constitutional claim
before the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission prior to bringing a court
action. (12 Cal.3d at pp. 250-251.) Although there is some language in Veta
critical of Walker, the two cases nonetheless are clearly and easily distinguishable,
because the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, unlike the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Appeals Board, had not been granted any judicial power by the
California Constitution. Thus, the holding in State of California v. Superior Court
(Veta) that the commission lacked authority to pass on the constitutionality of the
statute establishing its status and functions was not inconsistent with the Walker
decision.
In light of the foregoing review of the relevant case law, we believe that
after this court’s decision in Southern Pacific the state of the law in this area was
clear: administrative agencies that had been granted judicial or quasi-judicial
power by the California Constitution possessed the authority, in the exercise of
their administrative functions, to determine the constitutionality of statutes, but
agencies that had not been granted such power under the California Constitution
lacked such authority. (See Hand v. Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine
(1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 605, 617-619.) Accordingly, these decisions recognize that,
under California law, the determination whether a statute is unconstitutional and
need not be obeyed is an exercise of judicial power and thus is reserved to those
officials or entities that have been granted such power by the California
Constitution.21
21
In this regard it is worth noting that article III, section 3 of the California
Constitution explicitly provides: “The powers of State government are legislative,
(footnote continued on next page)
39
Given the foregoing decisions and their reasoning, it appears evident that
under California law as it existed prior to the adoption of article III, section 3.5 of
the California Constitution, a local executive official, such as a county clerk or
county recorder, possessed no authority to determine the constitutionality of a
statute that the official had a ministerial duty to enforce. If, in the absence of a
grant of judicial authority from the California Constitution, an administrative
agency that was required by law to reach its decisions only after conducting court-
like quasi-judicial proceedings did not generally possess the authority to pass on
the constitutionality of a statute that the agency was required to enforce, it follows
even more so that a local executive official who is charged simply with the
ministerial duty of enforcing a statute, and who generally acts without any quasi-
judicial authority or procedure whatsoever, did not possess such authority. As
indicated above, we are unaware of any California case that suggests such a public
official has been granted judicial or quasi-judicial power by the California
Constitution.22
(footnote continued from previous page)
executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not
exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.” (Italics
added.)
22
The city, in a footnote contained in its reply brief to several amicus curiae
briefs, maintains that the actions of its officials did not constitute the exercise of
judicial powers, citing a brief passage in this court’s decision in Lusardi Constr.
Co. v. Aubry (1992) 1 Cal.4th 976, 993 (Lusardi) (the Director of the Department
of Industrial Relations’ “determination that a project is a public work . . . cannot
be accurately characterized as ‘judicial,’ because it does not encompass the
conduct of a hearing or a binding order for any type of relief”). In Lusardi,
however, the director, unlike the city officials here, acted to enforce a statutory
provision; he did not defy or disregard a statutory provision on the basis of his
own determination that the statute was unconstitutional. Lusardi clearly provides
no support for the city’s position.
40
The city, in arguing that article III, section 3.5 does not apply to local
officials, relies upon the statement in Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees
Ret. Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 36, that the separation of powers clause in article
III “is inapplicable to the government below the state level.”23 The city might
well argue that this language in Strumsky also renders inapposite the line of
California cases (Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d 308; State of California v.
Superior Court (Veta), supra, 12 Cal.3d 237; and Walker, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d
67) that we have just discussed. The city fails to recognize, however, that the
decision in Strumsky emphatically did not hold that under the California
Constitution local executive officials are free to exercise judicial power. On the
contrary, in Strumsky this court expressly overruled a line of earlier California
decisions that had held (for purposes of determining the appropriate standard of
judicial review of a decision of a local administrative agency) that such an agency
could exercise judicial power; the opinion in Strumsky concluded instead that a
local administrative agency has no authority under the California Constitution to
exercise judicial power. (Strumsky, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 36-44.) In light of this
holding in Strumsky, it appears clear that a local executive official who makes
decisions — without the benefit of even a quasi-judicial proceeding — has no
23
The statement in numerous California decisions that the separation of
powers provision of article III is inapplicable to government below the state level
means simply that, in establishing a governmental structure for the purpose of
managing municipal affairs, the Legislature (through statutes) or local entities
(through charter provisions and the like) may combine executive, legislative, and
judicial functions in a manner different from the structure that the California
Constitution prescribes for state government. (See, e.g., Wulzen v. Board of
Supervisors (1894) 101 Cal. 15, 25-26; People v. Provines (1868) 34 Cal. 520,
532-540.) As explained hereafter, the statement does not mean that a local
executive official has the inherent authority to exercise judicial power.
41
authority to exercise judicial power, such as by determining the constitutionality of
applicable statutory provisions.
Accordingly, we conclude that at the time article III, section 3.5 was
adopted, it was clear under California law that a local executive official did not
have the authority to determine that a statute is unconstitutional or to refuse to
enforce a statute in the absence of a judicial determination that the statute is
unconstitutional.24
The adoption of article III, section 3.5, of course, effectively overruled the
majority’s holding in Southern Pacific and largely embraced the reasoning set
forth in Justice Mosk’s concurring and dissenting opinion, amending the
California Constitution to provide that “[a]n administrative agency, including an
administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power . . . [t]o . . . refuse to enforce a statute on the basis of its being
unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such
statute is unconstitutional.” (Italics added.) As we already have noted, we need
24
In a somewhat related context, this court held in Farley v. Healey (1967) 67
Cal.2d 325 that an acting registrar of voters, who refused to determine whether
sufficient signatures had been submitted to qualify a local initiative measure for
the ballot because of his conclusion that the content of the initiative was not a
proper subject for a local initiative, “exceeded his authority in undertaking to
determine whether the proposed initiative was within the power of the electorate to
adopt.” (67 Cal.2d at p. 327.) We explained that under the applicable charter
provision, the registrar’s “duty is limited to the ministerial function of ascertaining
whether the procedural requirements for submitting an initiative measure have
been met. It is not his function to determine whether a proposed initiative will be
valid if enacted or whether a proposed declaration of policy is one to which the
initiative may apply. These questions may involve difficult legal issues that only a
court can determine. Given compliance with the formal requirements for
submitting an initiative, the registrar must place it on the ballot unless he is
directed to do otherwise by a court on a compelling showing that a proper case has
been established for interfering with the initiative power.” (Ibid., italics added.)
42
not and do not decide in this case what effect the adoption of article III, section 3.5
has on the authority of local executive officials, because it is abundantly clear that
this constitutional amendment did not expand the authority of such officials so as
to permit them to refuse to enforce a statute solely on the basis of their view that
the statute is unconstitutional. Accordingly, we conclude that under California
law a local executive official generally lacks such authority.
D
In support of its contrary claim that, as a general matter, California law
long has recognized that an executive public official has the authority to refuse to
comply with a ministerial statutory duty whenever the official personally believes
the statute is unconstitutional, the city relies upon a line of California decisions
that have reviewed the validity of statutes or ordinances authorizing the issuance
of bonds, the letting of public contracts, or the disbursement of public funds in
mandate actions filed against public officials who refused to comply with a
ministerial duty. As the city accurately notes, numerous California decisions
addressing these three subjects have held that “mandate is the proper remedy to
compel a public officer to perform ministerial acts such as issuance of bonds [and
that] the constitutionality of the law authorizing a bond issuance may be
determined in a proceeding for such a writ.” (California Housing Finance
Agency v. Elliott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 575, 579-580 [bond]; see, e.g., California
Educational Facilities Authority v. Priest (1974) 12 Cal.3d 593, 598 [bond];
Metropolitan Water District v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 170-171 [public
contract]; City of Whittier v. Dixon (1944) 24 Cal.2d 664, 666 [warrant]; Golden
Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 315-320 [bond]; Los Angeles
Co. F.C. Dist. v. Hamilton (1917) 177 Cal. 119, 121 [bond]; Denman v. Broderick
(1896) 111 Cal. 95, 99, 105 [warrant].)
43
In each of the foregoing cases, the mandate action was instituted after a
public official who was under a statutory duty to perform a ministerial act that was
a necessary step in the issuance of the bond, the letting of the contract, or the
disbursement of public funds (such as affixing the official’s signature to the bond
or contract, or issuing a warrant) refused to perform that act based upon the
official’s ostensible doubts as to the constitutional validity of the statute
authorizing the bond, contract, or public expenditure. The city emphasizes that in
none of these cases did the court criticize such a public official for declining to
perform his or her ministerial act, but instead concluded that the public official’s
refusal to act was an appropriate means of bringing the constitutional question of
the validity of the bond, contract, or expenditure of public funds before the court
for resolution. The city maintains that these decisions demonstrate that the general
rule in California always has been that every public official is free to determine the
constitutional validity of the statutory provisions that he or she has a ministerial
duty to enforce or execute, and free to refuse to perform the ministerial act if he or
she in good faith believes the statute to be unconstitutional. The city argues that
the line of decisions we have analyzed above — holding, prior to the adoption of
article III, section 3.5, that only administrative agencies constitutionally authorized
to exercise judicial power have the authority to determine the constitutional
validity of statutes — involved a limited exception applicable only to
administrative agencies.
We believe the city’s argument misconceives the state of the law prior to
the adoption of article III, section 3.5. As we have discussed above, the general
rule established by California decisions at the time Southern Pacific, supra, 18
Cal.3d 308, was decided was that, among administrative agencies, only one that
had been granted judicial power under the California Constitution possessed the
authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute it was charged with
44
enforcing and to decline to apply the statute if the agency determined it was
unconstitutional. As already explained, if a nonconstitutional administrative
agency that rendered its decisions after an extensive quasi-judicial procedure — in
which the arguments for and against constitutionality could be fully presented and
considered in a quasi-judicial fashion — lacked authority to determine
constitutional issues, it clearly would be anomalous to permit an ordinary
executive official (who carries out his or her official action without the benefit of
any sort of quasi-judicial procedures) to determine the constitutionality of a statute
and to refuse to apply it based simply upon the official’s own good faith belief that
the statute is unconstitutional. Thus, the general rule in California and, as we
shall discuss below, in most jurisdictions was (and continues to be) that an
executive official does not possess such authority.
It is the line of public finance cases upon which the city relies that involves
the exceptional situation. As the applicable decisions make clear, the public
official in each of those cases was permitted to refuse to perform a ministerial act
when he or she had doubts about the validity of the underlying bond, contract, or
public expenditure, both in order to ensure that a mechanism was available for
obtaining a timely judicial determination of the validity of the bond issue,
contract, or public expenditure — a determination often essential to the
marketability of bonds or to the contracting parties’ willingness to go forward with
the contract (see, e.g., Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt, supra, 214 Cal. 308,
315), or to avoid irreparable loss of public funds25 — and in recognition of the
25
The public finance cases upon which the city relies generally preceded the
adoption of California’s validation statutes, which currently permit a public
agency to file an in rem action in order to obtain a judicial determination of the
validity of bonds, warrants, contracts, obligations, or similar evidences of
indebtedness. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 860 et seq. [initially adopted in 1961 (Stats.
(footnote continued on next page)
45
circumstance that, in this specific context, the public official frequently faced
potential personal liability (as distinguished from the potential liability of a
governmental entity) if the bond, contract, or public expenditure ultimately was
found to be invalid. (See, e.g., Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt,, supra, 214
Cal. at pp. 316-317; Denman v. Broderick, supra, 111 Cal. 96, 105.)
Although the city points to language in some of these decisions that could
be read to support the city’s broad position here, the holdings in these cases clearly
are limited to a public official’s ability to refuse to perform a ministerial act
necessary for the execution of a bond issue or public contract, or the disbursement
of public funds, where such refusal permits a judicial determination prior to the
actual sale of the bonds, the carrying out of the contract, or the disbursement of
public funds, and where the official’s personal liability frequently is at stake.
Contrary to the city’s contention, the circumstance that a public official may
refuse to perform a ministerial act in that context does not signify that in all other
contexts every public official is free to refuse to perform a ministerial act based
upon the official’s view that the statute the officer is statutorily obligated to apply
is unconstitutional.
The city attempts to bring the present matter within the reach of the
foregoing cases by arguing that if the city officials enforced California’s current
marriage laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman, the officials would face
possible personal liability for monetary damages under state or federal law if the
(footnote continued from previous page)
1961, ch. 1479, § 1, p. 3331)].) The current statutes provide that such actions
“shall be given preference over all other civil actions . . . to the end that such
actions shall be speedily heard and determined.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 867.)
46
marriage statutes subsequently were determined to be unconstitutional. The city’s
argument in this regard clearly lacks merit.
First, as a matter of state law, Government Code section 820.6 explicitly
provides that “[i]f a public employee acts in good faith, without malice, and under
the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid, or
inapplicable, he is not liable for an injury caused thereby except to the extent that
he would have been liable had the enactment been constitutional, valid and
applicable.” Thus, the officials clearly would not have incurred liability under
California law simply for following the current marriage statutes and declining to
issue marriage licenses or register marriage certificates in contravention of those
statutes. Second, under federal law, a local public official generally is immunized
from liability for official acts so long as the official’s conduct “does not violate
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known” (Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 818, italics
added; see Anderson v. Creighton (1987) 483 U.S. 635, 639), and, as we discuss
below (see, post, pp. 54-57), in this instance there simply is no plausible argument
that the city officials would have violated “clearly established” constitutional
rights by continuing to enforce California’s current marriage statutes in the
absence of a judicial determination that the statutes are unconstitutional. (Cf.
LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh (9th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 1146, 1160 [finding state officials
were not entitled to qualified immunity when “no reasonable official could have
believed” that application of the statute at issue was constitutional in light of prior
controlling judicial decisions].) Finally, even if the city officials were to be sued
in their personal capacity for actions taken pursuant to statute and in the scope of
their employment, under Government Code section 825 the officials would be
entitled to have their public employer provide a defense and pay any judgment
entered in such an action, whether the action was based on a state law claim or a
47
claim under the federal civil rights statutes. (See Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16
Cal.3d 834, 842-848.) Accordingly, there is no merit to the city’s contention that
the actions of the city officials that are challenged here can be defended as
necessary to avoid the incurring of personal liability on the part of such officials.
E
Some academic commentators, while confirming that as a general rule
executive officials must comply with duly enacted statutes even when the officials
believe the provisions are unconstitutional, have suggested that there may be room
to recognize an exception to this general rule in instances in which a public
official’s refusal to apply the statute would provide the most practical or
reasonable means of enabling the question of the statute’s constitutionality to be
brought before a court. (See, e.g., May, Presidential Defiance of
“Unconstitutional” Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative (1994) 21 Hastings
Const. L.Q. 865, 994-996.)26 As we have just seen, the line of public finance
cases relied upon by the city may be viewed as an example of just such a limited
26
A number of law review articles suggest that the federal Constitution
should be interpreted as permitting the President of the United States to refuse to
enforce a statute that the President believes is unconstitutional. (See, e.g.,
Easterbrook, Presidential Review (1990) 40 Case W. Res. L.Rev. 905.) Other
scholars, however, have made a strong argument that the history of the
proceedings of the constitutional convention that drafted the federal Constitution,
and in particular the Founders’ explicit rejection of a proposal for an absolute
presidential veto, refutes such an interpretation. (See, e.g., May, Presidential
Defiance of ‘Unconstitutional Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative, supra, 21
Hastings Const. L.Q. 865, 872-895.) To date, no court has accepted the contention
that the President possesses such authority. (See, e.g., Ameron, Inc. v. U.S. Army
Corp. of Eng’rs (3d Cir. 1986) 787 F.2d 875, 889 & fn. 11 [“This claim of right
for the President to declare statutes unconstitutional and to declare his refusal to
execute them, as distinguished from his undisputed right to veto, criticize, or even
refuse to defend in court, statutes which he regards as unconstitutional, is dubious
at best.”])
48
exception, and there are a number of other California decisions in which a
constitutional challenge to a statute or other legislative enactment has been
brought before a court for judicial resolution by virtue of a public entity’s refusal
to comply with the statute, under circumstances in which the public entity had a
personal stake or interest in the constitutional issue and the public entity’s action
was the most practicable or reasonable method of obtaining a judicial
determination of the validity of the statute. (See, e.g., County of Riverside v.
Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278 [impingement on county’s home rule
authority]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1, 5-10
[impingement on county’s taxing authority].)
Although it may be appropriate in some circumstances for a public entity or
public official to refuse or decline to enforce a statute as a means of bringing the
constitutionality of the statute before a court for judicial resolution, it is
nonetheless clear that such an exception does not justify the actions of the local
officials at issue in the present case. Here, there existed a clear and readily
available means, other than the officials’ wholesale defiance of the applicable
statutes, to ensure that the constitutionality of the current marriage statutes would
be decided by a court. If the local officials charged with the ministerial duty of
issuing marriage licenses and registering marriage certificates believed the state’s
current marriage statutes are unconstitutional and should be tested in court, they
could have denied a same-sex couple’s request for a marriage license and advised
the couple to challenge the denial in superior court. That procedure — a lawsuit
brought by a couple who have been denied a license under existing statutes — is
the procedure that was utilized to challenge the constitutionality of California’s
antimiscegenation statute in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, and the
procedure apparently utilized in all of the other same-sex marriage cases that have
been litigated recently in other states. (See, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin (Hawaii 1993)
49
852 P.2d 44; Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health (Mass. 2003) 798 N.E.2d
941; Baker v. State of Vermont (Vt. 1999) 744 A.2d 864.) The city cannot
plausibly claim that the desire to obtain a judicial ruling on the constitutional issue
justified the wholesale defiance of the applicable statutes that occurred here.27
Accordingly, the city cannot defend the challenged actions on the ground
that such actions were necessary to obtain a judicial determination of the
constitutionality of California’s marriage statutes.
F
The city also relies on the circumstance that each of the city officials in
question took an oath of office to “support and defend” the state and federal
Constitutions,28 suggesting that a public official would violate his or her oath of
27
As noted above, after several mandate actions were filed against the city in
superior court challenging the actions of the city officials, the city filed a cross-
complaint in one of the actions, seeking a declaratory judgment that the marriage
statutes are unconstitutional insofar as they limit marriage to a union between a
man and a woman. (See, ante, p. 9, fn. 6.) We have no occasion in this case to
determine whether the city properly could maintain a declaratory judgment action
in this setting, but we note that in another context the Legislature specifically has
authorized a public official who questions the constitutionality or validity of an
enactment to bring a declaratory judgment action rather than act in contravention
of the statute. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, § 538; see also City of Cotati v. Cashman
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79-80.)
28
Article XX, section 3 of the California Constitution provides in relevant
part: “Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees,
executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as
may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their
respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: [¶] ‘I,
____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
(footnote continued on next page)
50
office were the official to perform a ministerial act under a statute that the official
personally believes violates the Constitution. In our view, this contention clearly
lacks merit.
As Justice Mosk explained in his concurring and dissenting opinion in
Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d 308, 319, a public official “faithfully upholds
the Constitution by complying with the mandates of the Legislature, leaving to
courts the decision whether those mandates are invalid.” A public official does
not honor his or her oath to defend the Constitution by taking action in
contravention of the restrictions of his or her office or authority and justifying
such action by reference to his or her personal constitutional views. For example,
it is clear that a justice of this court or of an intermediate appellate court does not
act in contravention of his or her oath of office when the justice follows a
controlling constitutional decision of a higher court even though the justice
personally believes that the controlling decision was wrongly decided and that the
Constitution actually requires the opposite result. On the contrary, the oath to
support and defend the Constitution requires a public official to act within the
constraints of our constitutional system, not to disregard presumptively valid
statutes and take action in violation of such statutes on the basis of the official’s
own determination of what the Constitution means.29 (See also State v. State
(footnote continued from previous page)
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.’ ”
29
The brief footnote discussion in Board of Education v. Allen (1968) 392
U.S. 236, 241, footnote 5, relied upon by the city, does not conflict with this
conclusion. In Allen, officials of a local public school district brought a court
action challenging the validity, under the establishment clause of the First
Amendment, of a state statute that required the school district to loan books free of
charge to all students in the district, including students attending private religious
(footnote continued on next page)
51
Board of Equalizers (Fla. 1922) 94 So. 681, 682-683 [“The contention that the
oath of a public official requiring him to obey the Constitution places upon him
the duty or obligation to determine whether an act is constitutional before he will
obey it is . . . without merit. The fallacy in it is that every act of the legislature is
presumed constitutional until judicially declared otherwise, and the oath of office
‘to obey the Constitution’ means to obey the Constitution, not as the officer
decides, but as judicially determined.”].)30
(footnote continued from previous page)
schools. In the footnote in question, the court in Allen noted that no one had
questioned the standing of the local district and its officials “to press their claim in
this Court,” and then stated that “[b]elieving [the statute in question] to be
unconstitutional, [the officials] are in the position of having to choose between
violating their oath [to support the United States Constitution] and taking a step —
refusal to comply with [the applicable statute] — that would likely bring their
expulsion from office and also a reduction in state funding for their school
districts. There can be no doubt that appellants thus have a ‘personal stake in the
outcome’ of this litigation.” (Allen, 392 U.S. at p. 241, fn. 5 [quoting Baker v.
Carr (1962) 369 U.S. 186, 204].) The footnote’s reference to the officials’ oath
to support the Constitution indicates no more than that the public officials’ belief
that the statute was unconstitutional afforded them standing to bring a court action
to challenge the statute. The footnote in Allen does not hold that the federal
Constitution, or a public official’s oath to support the federal Constitution,
authorizes a state official to undertake official action forbidden by a state statute
based solely on the official’s belief that the statute is unconstitutional, and, as
discussed below (post, pp. 65-68), numerous federal authorities refute that
proposition.
30
The city also obliquely suggests that the general rule requiring a public
official to perform a ministerial duty prescribed by statute, despite the official’s
personal view that the statute is unconstitutional, is contrary to the teaching of the
Nuremberg trials, which rejected the “I was just following orders” defense. In
response to a similar claim, the federal district court in Haring v. Blumenthal
(D.D.C. 1979) 471 F.Supp. 1172, 1178, footnote 15, cogently observed:
“Plaintiff’s comparison of his situation with that of the Nuremberg defendants is
grossly simplistic. The Nuremberg defendants could have escaped liability by
failing to seek and retain positions which exposed them to the execution of
(footnote continued on next page)
52
G
The city further contends that a general rule requiring an executive official
to comply with an existing statute unless and until the statute has been judicially
determined to be unconstitutional is impractical and would lead to intolerable
circumstances. The city posits a hypothetical example of a public official faced
with a statute that is identical in all respects to another statute that a court already
has determined is unconstitutional, and suggests it would be absurd to require the
official to apply the clearly invalid statute in that instance. For support, the city
points to a passage in the majority opinion in Southern Pacific, which asks
rhetorically: “[W]hen the United States Supreme Court, for example, repudiates
the separate but equal doctrine established by the statutes of one state, should the
school boards of other states continue to apply identical statutes until a court
declares them invalid [?]” (Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d 308, 311, fn. 2.)
Whatever force this argument might have in a case in which a governing
decision previously has found an identical statute unconstitutional or in which the
invalidity of the statute is so patent or clearly established that no reasonable
(footnote continued from previous page)
objectionable activity; and, should plaintiff feel sufficiently strongly about the
matter, he may do likewise. Beyond that, plaintiff’s analogy demonstrates
primarily that debates and dialogues on public issues have become so debased in
recent years that such terms as genocide, war crime, crimes against humanity, and
the like are bandied about with considerable abandon in connection with almost
every conceivable controversial issue of public policy. There is not the slightest
similarity between the crimes committed under the aegis of a violent dictatorship
and the implementation of laws adopted under a system of government which
offers free elections, freedom of expression, and an independent judiciary as
safeguards against excesses and as a guarantee of the ultimate rule of a sovereign
citizenry.” We agree.
53
official could believe the statute is constitutional,31 the argument plainly is of no
avail here. Although we have no occasion in this case to determine the
constitutionality of the current California marriage statutes, we can say with
confidence that the asserted invalidity of those statutes certainly is not so patent or
clearly established that no reasonable official could believe that the current
California marriage statutes are valid. Indeed, the city cannot point to any judicial
decision that has held a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman
unconstitutional under the California or federal Constitution. Instead, the city
relies on state court decisions from Massachusetts, Vermont, and Hawaii, that, in
interpreting their own state constitutions, assertedly have found similar statutory
restrictions to violate provisions of their state’s own constitution. (See Goodridge
v. Department of Pub. Health, supra, 798 N.E.2d 941; Baker v. State of Vermont,
supra, 744 A.2d 864; Baehr v. Lewin, supra, 852 P.2d 44.)32 A significant
31
See, for example, Schmid v. Lovett (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 466, 474
(holding that article III, section 3.5, of the California Constitution did not require
public community college officials to continue to apply a statute requiring public
employees to sign an anti-Communist-Party loyalty oath when comparable statutes
had been held unconstitutional by both federal and state supreme court decisions)
and LSO Ltd. v. Stroh, supra, 205 F.2d 1146, 1160 (holding that no reasonable
official could have believed that a statute prohibiting exhibition of nonobscene
erotic art on any premises holding a liquor license could constitutionally be
applied in light of a then recent United States Supreme Court decision).
32
Of the three decisions cited by the city, the Massachusetts decision in
Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, supra, 798 N.E.2d 941, appears to be
the only one squarely to hold that a state constitution precludes the state from
withholding the status of marriage from same-sex couples.
In
Baker v. State of Vermont, supra, 744 A.2d 864, the court summarized
its conclusion under the “common benefits” clause of the Vermont Constitution, as
follows: “The State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the
common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law.
Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws
themselves or a parallel ‘domestic partnership’ system or some equivalent
(footnote continued on next page)
54
number of other state and federal courts, however, have reached a contrary
conclusion and have upheld the constitutional validity of such a restriction on
marriage under both the federal Constitution and other state constitutions. (See,
e.g., Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186-187, app. dism. for want
(footnote continued from previous page)
statutory alternative rests with the Legislature.” (744 A.2d at p. 867; see also id. at
pp. 886-887.) The Vermont Legislature subsequently enacted a civil union statute.
(Vt. Stat. Ann., tit. 15, §§ 1201-1207 (supp. 2001).)
In
Baehr v. Lewin, supra, 852 P.2d 44, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that
the trial court in that case had erred in granting judgment on the pleadings against
three same-sex couples who had sued for declaratory and injunctive relief after
being denied marriage licenses, concluding that the plaintiffs were entitled to go
forward with their action and that, under the equal protection clause of the Hawaii
Constitution, the state would have to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify
the statutory classification. (852 P.2d at p. 68.) Following the decision in Baehr,
the voters in Hawaii amended the Hawaii Constitution to limit marriage to unions
between a man and a woman, and, in light of that amendment, the Hawaii
Supreme Court thereafter ordered entry of judgment in favor of the defendants in
the Baehr litigation. (See Baehr v. Miike (Haw. 1999) 994 P.2d 566 [full order
reported at 1999 Haw.Lexis 391].)
In addition to relying upon Goodridge, Baker, and Baehr, the city points to
a passage in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
539 U.S. 558, in which he expressed the view that the reasoning of the majority
opinion in Lawrence — holding a Texas sodomy statute unconstitutional —
would lead to the conclusion that a statute precluding same-sex marriages also
would be unconstitutional. (Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. at pp. 604-605
(dis. opn. by Scalia, J.) The majority opinion in Lawrence, however, expressly
stated that “[t]he present case . . . does not involve whether the government must
give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to
enter.” (539 U.S. at p. 578). In light of this very specific disclaimer in the
majority opinion in Lawrence, we conclude that the city cannot plausibly claim
that the Lawrence decision clearly establishes that a state statute limiting marriage
to a man and a woman is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. (See
also Standhardt v. Super. Ct. (Ariz.Ct.App. 2003) 77 P.2d 451, 454-460, 464-465
[post-Lawrence case rejecting claim that Lawrence indicates the federal
Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage].)
55
of substantial federal question (1972) 409 U.S. 810 [federal Constitution];33
Standhardt v. Super. Ct., supra, 77 P.3d 451, 454-465 [federal and Arizona
Constitutions]; Dean v. District of Columbia (D.C.Ct.App. 1995) 653 A.2d 307,
361-364 (opns. by Terry, J. & Steadman, J. [federal Constitution]; Jones v.
Hallahan (Ky.Ct.App. 1973) 501 S.W.2d 588, 590 [federal Constitution];
Singer v. Hara (Wash. Ct. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1189-1197 [federal and
Washington Constitutions]; Adams v. Howerton (C.D.Cal. 1980) 486 F.Supp.
1119, 1124-1125, affd. (9th Cir. 1982) 673 F.2d 1036, cert. den. (1982) 458 U.S.
1111 [federal Constitution].) Although the state court decisions from
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Hawaii relied upon by the city surely would be of
interest to a California court faced with the question whether the current California
marriage statutes violate the California Constitution, a California court would be
33
Petitioners in Lewis maintain that because the United States Supreme Court
summarily dismissed the appeal in Baker v. Nelson for want of a substantial
federal question and because such a summary dismissal is treated as a decision on
the merits (see Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda
(1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344), the summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson definitively
establishes that, under current federal law, a statute limiting marriage to a man and
a woman does not violate the federal Constitution. The city, on the other hand,
cites a number of decisions stating that when there have been subsequent doctrinal
developments in the United States Supreme Court that undermine the holding in a
summary dismissal, the lower courts are not bound to follow the summary
dismissal as controlling authority (see, e.g., Tenafly Eruv Ass’n v. Borough of
Tenafly (3d Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 144, 173, fn. 33; Lecates v. Justice of the Peace
Court No. 4 of Delaware (3d Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 898, 904), and the city argues
that there have been such doctrinal developments in subsequent high court
decisions that undermine the holding in Baker v. Nelson. We find no need to
resolve this dispute here, because whatever the current effect of the summary
dismissal in Baker v. Nelson, the case before us clearly does not present an
instance in which the invalidity of the current California marriage statutes is so
patent or clearly established that no reasonable official could believe that the
statutes are constitutional.
56
equally interested in the decisions of the courts that have reached a contrary
conclusion (and in the reasoning of the minority opinions in the state court
decisions relied upon by the city (see Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health,
supra, 798 N.E.2d 941, 974-1105 (dis. opns. by Spina, J., Sosman, J., & Cordy,
J.); Baehr v. Lewin, supra, 852 P.2d 44, 70-73 (dis. opn. by Heen, J.)). In light of
the absence of any California authority directly on point and the sharp division of
judicial views expressed in the out-of-state decisions that have considered similar
constitutional challenges, this plainly is not an instance in which the invalidity of
the California marriage statutes is so patent or clearly established that no
reasonable official could believe that the statutes are constitutional. Therefore,
this case does not fall within any narrow exception that may apply to instances in
which it would be absurd or unreasonable to require a public official to comply
with a statute that any reasonable official would conclude is unconstitutional.
H
Accordingly, we conclude that, under California law, the city officials had
no authority to refuse to perform their ministerial duty in conformity with the
current California marriage statutes on the basis of their view that the statutory
limitation of marriage to a couple comprised of a man and a woman is
unconstitutional.
It is worth noting that the California rule generally precluding an executive
official from refusing to perform a ministerial duty imposed by statute on the basis
of the official’s determination or opinion that the statute is unconstitutional is
consistent with the general rule applied in the overwhelming majority of cases
from other jurisdictions. (See generally Annot., Unconstitutionality of Statute as
Defense to Mandamus Proceeding (1924) 30 A.L.R.. 378, 379 [“[t]he weight of
authority [holds] that a public officer whose duties are of a ministerial character
cannot question the constitutionality of a statute as a defense to a mandamus
57
proceeding to compel him to perform some official duty, where in the
performance of such duty his personal interests or rights will not be affected, and
he will not incur any personal liability, or violate his oath of office”]; Annot.
(1940) 129 A.L.R. 941 [supplementing 30 A.L.R. 378]; see also Note (1928) 42
Harv. L.Rev. 1071.)34
34
Our review of the decisions of our sister states and the District of Columbia
reflects that of the 33 jurisdictions in which decisions have been found addressing
this subject, 26 appear to have recognized and endorsed the proposition that, as a
general rule, an executive official who is charged with a ministerial duty to
enforce a statute has no authority to refuse to apply the statute, in the absence of a
judicial determination that the statute is unconstitutional, on the ground that the
official believes the statute is unconstitutional, although many of the jurisdictions,
like California, also recognize an exception for bond or other public finance cases,
in which an official is permitted to refuse to apply a statute as a means of
obtaining a timely judicial determination of the legality of the bond or public
expenditure. (See Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Byrne (Colo. 1980) 618
P.2d 1374, 1379-1380 [foll. Ames v. People (Colo. 1899) 56 P. 656, 658]; Levitt v.
Attorney General (Conn. 1930) 151 A. 171, 176; Panitz v. District of Columbia
(D.C.Cir. 1940) 112 F.2d 39, 41-42 [applying District of Columbia law]; Fuchs v.
Robbins (Fla. 2002) 818 So.2d 460, 463-464 [foll. State v. State Board of
Equalizers, supra, 94 So. 681, 682-684]; Taylor v. State (Ga. 1931) 162 S.E. 504,
508-509; Howell v. Board of Comm’rs (Idaho 1898) 53 P. 542, 543; People ex rel.
Atty. Gen. v. Salomon (1870) 54 Ill. 39, 44-46; Bd. of Sup’rs of Linn Cty. v. Dept.
of Revenue (Iowa 1978) 263 N.W.2d 227, 232-234 [foll. Charles Hewitt & Sons
Co. v. Keller (Iowa 1937) 275 N.W. 94, 95-97]; Tincher v. Commonwealth (Ky.
1925) 271 S.W. 1066, 1068; Dore v. Tugwell (La. 1955) 84 So.2d 199, 201-202
[foll. State v. Heard (La. 1895) 18 So. 746, 749-752]; Smyth v. Titcomb (1850) 31
Me. 272, 285; Maryland Classified Emp. Ass’n v. Anderson (Md. 1977) 380 A.2d
1032, 1035-1037; Assessors of Haverhill v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. (Mass.
1955) 124 N.E.2d 917, 920-921; State v. Steele County Bd. of Com’rs (Minn.
1930) 232 N.W. 737, 738-739; St. Louis County v. Litzinger (Mo. 1963) 372
S.W.2d 880, 881-882 [foll. State v. Becker (Mo. 1931) 41 S.W.2d 188, 190-191];
State v. McFarlan (Mont. 1927) 252 P. 805, 808; State v. Sedillo (N.M. 1929) 275
P. 765, 765-767; Attorney General v. Taubenheimer (1917) 178 App.Div. 321,
321 [164 N.Y.Supp. 904, 904]; Dept. of State Highways v. Baker (N.D. 1940) 290
N.W. 258, 260-262; State v. Griffith (Ohio 1940) 25 N.E.2d 847, 848-849; State ex
rel. Cruce v. Cease (Okla. 1911) 114 P. 251, 252-253; Commonwealth v. Mathues
(footnote continued on next page)
58
Although there are numerous out-of-state cases that address this issue, one
of the most quoted decisions is State v. Heard, supra, 18 So. 746, 752, where the
court, after an extensive review of the then existing authorities from various
jurisdictions, concluded: “[E]xecutive officers of the State government have no
authority to decline the performance of purely ministerial duties which are
imposed upon them by a law, on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution.
(footnote continued from previous page)
(Pa. 1904) 59 A. 961, 964-969; State v. Burley (S.C. 1908) 61 S.E. 255, 257;
Thoreson v. State Board of Examiners (Utah 1899) 57 P. 175, 177-179; City of
Montpelier v. Gates (Vt. 1934) 170 A. 473, 476-477; Capito v. Topping (W.Va.
1909) 64 S.E. 845, 846; Riverton v. Valley D. Dist. v. Board of County Com’rs
(Wyo. 1937) 74 P.2d 871, 873.)
Of the seven states that may be viewed as adopting the minority position,
most have addressed the issue only in the context of actions either relating to
matters affecting the expenditure of public funds or where the rights or interests of
the public officer or public entity were directly at stake. (See State v. Steinwedel
(Ind. 1932) 180 N.E. 865, 866-868 [public expenditure]; Toombs v. Sharkey (Miss.
1925) 106 So. 273, 277 [public expenditure]; Van Horn v. State (Neb. 1895) 64
N.W. 365, 371-372 [county reorganization]; State v. Slusher (Or. 1926) 248
P. 358, 359-360 [tax collection]; Holman v. Pabst (Tex. 1930) 27 S.W.2d 340,
342-343 [local election procedure]; Hindman v. Boyd (Wash. 1906) 84 P. 609, 612
[local election procedure]; State v. Tappan (Wis. 1872) 9 Am. Rep. 622, 635 [tax
collection].)
A number of the out-of-state cases discuss a separate line of cases that
address the issue whether a public official or public entity has “standing” to bring
a court action — for example, a declaratory judgment action — challenging the
constitutionality of a statute the official or entity is obligated to comply with or
enforce. (See, e.g., Fuchs v. Robbins, supra, 818 So.2d 460, 463-464; Bd. of
Sup’rs of Linn Cty v. Dept. of Revenue, supra, 263 N.W.2d 227, 233-234; see also
City of Kenosha (Wis. 1967) 151 N.W.2d 36, 42-43.) Although the standing issue
involves some of the same considerations that are applicable to the issue we face
here, from a separation of powers perspective, conduct by an executive official
that simply asks a court to determine the constitutionality of a statute would
appear to raise much less concern than an executive official’s unilateral refusal to
enforce a statute based on the official’s opinion that the statute is unconstitutional.
59
Laws are presumed to be, and must be treated and acted upon by subordinate
executive functionaries as constitutional and legal, until their unconstitutionality or
illegality has been judicially established, for, in all well regulated government,
obedience to its laws by executive officers is absolutely essential, and of
paramount importance. Were it not so the most inextricable confusion would
inevitably result, and ‘produce such collisions in the administration of public
affairs as to materially impede the proper and necessary operations of the
government.’ ‘It was surely never intended that an executive functionary should
nullify a law by neglecting or refusing to execute it.’ ” (See also Department of
State Highways v. Baker, supra, 290 N.W. 257, 259 [“There is no question as to
the general rule that a subordinate ministerial officer to whom no injury can result
and to whom no violation of duty can be imputed by reason of compliance with
the statute may not question the constitutionality of the statute imposing such
duty.”]; State v. Becker, supra, 41 S.W.2d 188, 190 [“It is well settled in this state
and in a great majority of our sister states that, as a general rule, a ministerial
officer cannot defend his refusal to perform a duty prescribed by a statute on the
ground that such statute is unconstitutional.”]; State v. Steele County Board of
Com’rs, supra, 232 N.W. 737, 738 [“[Although] [t]he authorities are in conflict[,]
[t]he better doctrine, supported by the weight of authority, is that an official so
charged with the performance of a ministerial duty will not be allowed to question
the constitutionality of such a law. . . . Officials acting ministerially are not
clothed with judicial authority. . . . Their authority is the command of the statute,
and it is the limit of their power.”]; State v. State Board of Equalizers, supra, 94
So. 681, 683 [“It is contended that an individual may refuse to obey a law that he
believes to be unconstitutional, and take a chance on its fate in the courts. He does
this, however, ‘at his peril’; the ‘peril’ being to suffer the consequences, such as
fine or imprisonment, or both, if the courts should hold the act to be constitutional.
60
[¶] A ministerial officer refusing to enforce a law because in his opinion it is
unconstitutional takes no such risk. He does nothing ‘at his peril,’ because he
subjects himself to no penalty if his opinion as to the unconstitutionality of an act
is not sustained by the courts. [¶] It is the doctrine of nullification, pure and
simple, and whatever may have been said of the soundness of that doctrine when
sought to be applied by states to acts of Congress, the most ardent followers of Mr.
Calhoun never extended it to give to ministerial officers the right and power to
nullify a legislative enactment.” (Italics added.)].)
I
In addition to the California decisions reviewed above and the weight of
judicial authority from other jurisdictions, consideration of the practical
consequences of a contrary rule further demonstrates the unsoundness of the city’s
position.
To begin with, most local executive officials have no legal training and thus
lack the relevant expertise to make constitutional determinations. Although every
individual (lawyer or nonlawyer) is, of course, free to form his or her own opinion
of what the Constitution means and how it should be interpreted and applied, a
local executive official has no authority to impose his or her personal view on
others by refusing to comply with a ministerial duty imposed by statute. (See,
e.g., Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d 308, 321 (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.)
[“Certainly attorneys have no monopoly on wisdom, but a person trained for three
or more years in a college of law and then tempered with at least a decade of
experience within the judicial system is likely to be far better equipped to make
61
difficult constitutional judgments than a lay administrator with no background in
the law.”].)35
Second, if, as the city maintains, a local official were to possess the
authority to act on the basis of his or her own constitutional determination, such an
official generally would arrive at that determination without affording the affected
individuals any due process safeguards and, in particular, without providing any
opportunity for those supporting the constitutionality of the statutes to be heard.
In its opposition to the initial petition filed in this case, the city urged this court not
to immediately accept jurisdiction over the substantive question of the
constitutionality of California’s marriage laws at this time, because that question
properly could be determined only after a full presentation of evidence before a
trial court. The city officials themselves, however, made their own constitutional
35
Several amici curiae point out that nonattorney public officials are able to
seek legal advice from a county counsel or city attorney (see Gov. Code,
§§ 27640, 41801) and assert that such nonattorney officials presumably will do so
before disobeying a statute on the ground it is unconstitutional. County counsel
and city attorneys, however, also are executive officers who, like a nonattorney
public official, have not been granted judicial power and thus also lack the
authority to determine that a statute is unconstitutional and that it should not be
followed. A nonattorney public official generally will be in no position to
critically evaluate legal advice obtained from such counsel regarding the question
of a statute’s constitutionality. Outside the very narrow category of instances in
which legal counsel can advise that the invalidity of the statute is so patent or
clearly established that any reasonable public official would conclude that the
statute in question is unconstitutional (see, ante, pp. 53-57), whenever a
nonattorney official defies a statutory mandate on the basis of a county counsel’s
or city attorney’s legal advice, the official’s refusal to apply the statute actually
will rest upon legal counsel’s judgment on a debatable constitutional question,
rather than upon the judgment of the official on whom the statute imposes a
ministerial duty. Furthermore, a nonattorney official is under no obligation to act
in accordance with a legal opinion (often given confidentially) provided by a
county counsel or city attorney.
62
determination without conducting any such evidentiary hearing or taking other
measures designed to protect the rights of those who maintain that the statute is
constitutional. Thus, despite the settled rule that a duly enacted statute is
presumed to be constitutional, under the city’s proposed rule a local executive
official would be free to determine that a statute is unconstitutional and refuse to
enforce it, without providing even the most rudimentary of due process
procedures — notice and an opportunity to be heard — to anyone directly affected
by the official’s action.
Third, there are thousands of elected and appointed public officials in
California’s 58 counties charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing thousands
of state statutes. If each official were empowered to decide whether or not to carry
out each ministerial act based upon the official’s own personal judgment of the
constitutionality of an underlying statute, the enforcement of statutes would
become haphazard, leading to confusion and chaos and thwarting the uniform
statewide treatment that state statutes generally are intended to provide. (Cf.
Haring v. Blumenthal, supra, 471 F.Supp. 1172, 1178-1179 [“Unless and until the
Congress, or a court of competent jurisdiction . . . , determines that a particular tax
exemption ruling is invalid, the employees of the [Internal Revenue] Service . . .
are obliged to implement that ruling. Not merely the concept of a uniform tax
policy but the effectiveness of the government of the United States as a
functioning entity would be in jeopardy if each employee could take it upon
himself to decide which particular laws, regulations, and policies are legal or
illegal, and to base his official actions upon that private determination.”].)
Although in the past the multiplicity of public officials performing similar
ministerial acts under a single statute never has posed a problem in this regard,
that is undoubtedly true only because most officials never imagined they had the
authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute that they have a ministerial
63
duty to enforce. Were we to hold that such officials possess this authority, it is not
difficult to anticipate that private individuals who oppose enforcement of a statute
and question its constitutionality would attempt to influence ministerial officials in
various locales to exercise on behalf of such opponents the officials’ newly
recognized authority. The circumstance that many local officials have no legal
training would only exacerbate the problem. As a consequence, the uneven
enforcement of statutory mandates in different local jurisdictions likely would
become a significant concern.
Fourth, the confused state of affairs arising from diverse actions by a
multiplicity of local officials frequently would continue for a considerable period
of time, because under the city’s proposed rule a court generally could not order a
public official to comply with the challenged statute until the court actually had
determined that it was constitutional. In view of the many instances in which a
constitutional challenge to a statute entails lengthy litigation, the lack of uniform
treatment afforded to similarly situated citizens throughout the state often would
be a long-term phenomenon.
These practical considerations simply confirm the soundness of the
established rule that an executive official generally does not have the authority to
refuse to comply with a ministerial duty imposed by statute on the basis of the
official’s opinion that the statute is unconstitutional.36
36
Despite the suggestion in Justice Werdegar’s concurring and dissenting
opinion (post, at pp. 6-10), this established rule does not represent any sort of
broad claim of judicial power over the executive branch, but on the contrary
reflects the general duty of an executive official, in carrying out a ministerial
function authorized by statute, not to assume the authority to supersede or
contravene the directions of the legislative branch or to exercise the traditional
function of the judicial branch.
64
V
The city further claims, however, that even if California law does not
recognize the authority of a local official to refuse to comply with a statutorily
mandated ministerial duty absent a judicial determination that the statute is
unconstitutional, under the federal supremacy clause (U.S. Const., art. VI, § 2)
California lacks the power to require a public official to comply with a state statute
that the official believes violates the federal Constitution. Although in the present
case the mayor’s initial letter to the county clerk relied solely upon the asserted
unconstitutionality of the California marriage statutes under the California
Constitution, the city, in the opposition filed in this court, for the first time
advanced the position that the action taken by the city officials was based, at least
in part, on their belief that the California statutes violate the federal Constitution,
and the city now rests its supremacy clause claim on this newly asserted belief.
Putting aside the question of the bona fides of this belatedly proffered rationale,
we conclude that, in any event, the federal supremacy clause provides no support
for the city’s argument.
To begin with, the principal cases upon which the city relies — Ex Parte
Young (1908) 209 U.S. 123 and LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, supra, 205 F.3d 1146 — are
readily distinguishable from the present case. Those cases stand only for the
proposition that the circumstance that a state official is acting pursuant to the
provisions of an applicable state statute does not necessarily shield the official (or
the public entity on whose behalf the official acts) either from an injunction or a
monetary judgment issued by a federal court, where the federal court subsequently
determines that the state statute violates the federal Constitution.37 The city has
37
As explained above (ante, pp. 46-48), under the circumstances in this case
there is no plausible basis for suggesting that the city officials would have
(footnote continued on next page)
65
not cited any case holding that the federal Constitution prohibits a state from
defining the authority of a state’s executive officials in a manner that requires such
officials to comply with a clearly applicable statute unless and until such a statute
is judicially determined to be unconstitutional, nor any case holding that the
federal Constitution compels a state to permit every executive official, state or
local, to refuse to enforce an applicable statutory provision whenever the official
personally believes the statute violates the federal Constitution.
Furthermore, numerous pronouncements by the United States Supreme
Court directly refute the city’s contention that the supremacy clause or any other
provision of the federal Constitution embodies such a principle. To begin with,
the high court’s position on the proper role of federal executive officials with
regard to constitutional determinations is instructive. In Davies Warehouse Co. v.
Bowles (1944) 321 U.S. 144, 152-153, for example, in response to the plaintiff’s
contention that under one proposed reading of the applicable statute “the [federal
Price] Administrator [an executive official] would have to decide whether the state
regulation is constitutional before he should recognize it,” the United States
Supreme Court stated: “We cannot give weight to this view of [the Price
Administrator’s] functions, which we think it unduly magnifies. State statutes,
like federal ones, are entitled to the presumption of constitutionality until their
invalidity is judicially declared. Certainly no power to adjudicate constitutional
issues is conferred on the Administrator. . . . We think the Administrator will not
be remiss in his duties if he assumes the constitutionality of state regulatory
statutes, under both state and federal constitutions, in the absence of a contrary
(footnote continued from previous page)
subjected themselves to personal liability had they acted in conformity with the
terms of the current California marriage statutes.
66
judicial determination.” (Italics added; see also Weinberger v. Salfi (1975) 422
U.S. 749, 765 [“[T]he constitutionality of a statutory requirement [is] a matter
which is beyond [the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare’s] jurisdiction
to determine”]; Johnson v. Robison (1974) 415 U.S. 361, 368 [“[a]djudication of
the constitutionality of congressional amendments has generally been thought
beyond the jurisdiction of administrative agencies”]; Oestereich v. Selective
Service Board (1968) 393 U.S. 233, 242 (conc. opn. of Harlan, J.) [same]; cf.
Thunder Basin Coast Co. v. Reich (1994) 510 U.S. 200, 215.) In light of the high
court’s repeated statements that federal executive officials generally lack authority
to determine the constitutionality of statutes, the city’s claim that the federal
supremacy clause itself grants a state or local official the authority to refuse to
enforce a statute that the official believes is unconstitutional is plainly untenable.
Furthermore, there are several earlier United States Supreme Court cases
that even more directly refute the city’s contention. Smith v. Indiana (1903) 191
U.S. 138 was a case, arising from the Indiana state courts, in which a county
auditor had refused to grant a statutorily authorized exemption to a taxpayer
because the auditor believed the exemption violated the federal Constitution. A
mandate action was filed against the auditor, and the state courts permitted the
auditor to raise and litigate the asserted unconstitutionality of the statute as a
defense in the mandate action, ultimately determining that the exemption was
constitutionally permissible and directing the auditor to grant the exemption. The
auditor appealed the state court decision upholding the constitutionality of the
state statute to the United States Supreme Court.
In its opinion in Smith, the high court observed that “there are many
authorities to the effect that a ministerial officer, charged by law with the duty of
enforcing a certain statute, cannot refuse to perform his plain duty thereunder upon
the ground that in his opinion it is repugnant to the Constitution” (Smith v.
67
Indiana, supra, 191 U.S. at p. 148), but it recognized that a state court “has the
power . . . to assume jurisdiction in such a case if it chooses to do so.” (Ibid.) At
the same time, however, the court in Smith stated explicitly that “the power of a
public officer to question the constitutionality of a statute as an excuse for refusing
to enforce it . . . is a purely local question” (ibid., italics added) — that is, purely a
question of state (not federal) law — a conclusion that directly refutes the city’s
claim that federal law requires a state to recognize the authority of a ministerial
official to refuse to comply with a statute whenever the official believes it violates
the federal Constitution. Moreover, in Smith itself the United States Supreme
Court went on to hold that although the state court in that case had permitted the
auditor to litigate the constitutionality of the state statute, the auditor did not have
a sufficient personal interest in the litigation to support jurisdiction in the United
States Supreme Court; thus the high court dismissed the auditor’s appeal without
reaching the question of the constitutionality of the underlying statute.38 A few
years later, the high court followed its decision in Smith, dismissing a similar
appeal by a state auditor in Braxton County Court v. West Virginia (1908) 208
U.S. 192, 197.
In light of the foregoing high court decisions, we conclude that the
California rule set forth above does not conflict with any federal constitutional
requirement.
38
The court in Smith explained in this regard: “It is evident that the auditor
had no personal interest in the litigation. He had certain duties as a public officer
to perform. The performance of those duties was of no personal benefit to him.
Their non-performance was equally so. . . . He was testing the constitutionality of
the law purely in the interest of third persons, viz., the taxpayers . . . .” (Smith v.
Indiana, supra, 191 U.S. at pp. 148-149.)
68
VI
The city contends, however, that even if we conclude that its officials
lacked the authority to refuse to enforce the marriage statutes, we still cannot issue
the writ of mandate sought by petitioners without first determining whether
California’s current marriage statutes are constitutional, in light of the general
proposition that courts will not issue a writ of mandate to require a public official
to perform an unconstitutional act. As the Florida Supreme Court explained in a
similar context, however, “[i]t is no answer to say that the courts will not require a
ministerial officer to perform an unconstitutional act. That aspect of the case is
not before us. We must first determine the power of the ministerial officer to
refuse to perform a statutory duty because in his opinion the law is
unconstitutional. When we decide that, we do not get to the question of the
constitutionality of the act, and it will not be decided.” (State v. State Board of
Equalizers, supra, 94 So. 681, 684.) Accordingly, because we have concluded
that the city officials have no authority to refuse to apply the current marriage
statutes in the absence of a judicial determination that these statutes are
unconstitutional, we conclude that the requested writ of mandate should issue.
VII
Finally, we must determine the appropriate scope of the relief to be ordered.
As a general matter, the nature of the relief warranted in a mandate action is
dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case, and a court is not
necessarily limited by the prayer sought in the mandate petition but may grant the
relief it deems appropriate. (See Johnson v. Fontana County F.P. Dist. (1940) 15
Cal.2d 380, 391-392; George M. v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 755,
760; Sacramento City Police Dept. v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d
1193, 1197, fn. 5.)
69
In the present case, we are faced with an unusual, perhaps unprecedented,
set of circumstances. Here, local public officials have purported to authorize,
perform, and register literally thousands of marriages in direct violation of explicit
state statutes. The Attorney General, as well as a number of local taxpayers, have
filed these original mandate proceedings in this court to halt the local officials’
unauthorized conduct and to compel these officials to correct or undo the
numerous unlawful actions they have taken in the immediate past. As explained
above, we have determined that the city officials exceeded their authority in
issuing marriage licenses to, solemnizing marriages of, and registering marriage
certificates on behalf of, same-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we
conclude that it is appropriate in this mandate proceeding not only to order the city
officials to comply with the applicable statutes in the future, but also to direct the
officials to take all necessary steps to remedy the continuing effect of their past
unlawful actions, including correction of all relevant official records and
notification of affected individuals of the invalidity of the officials’ actions.
In light of the clear terms of Family Code section 300 defining marriage as
a “personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a
woman” and the legislative history of this provision demonstrating that the
purpose of this limitation was to “prohibit persons of the same sex from entering
lawful marriage” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-
1978 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 23, 1977, p. 1 [discussed, ante, p. 15, fn. 11]),
we believe it plainly follows 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. Although this precise issue has not previously been
presented under California law, every court that has considered the question has
determined that when state law limits marriage to a union between a man and a
woman, a same-sex marriage performed in violation of state law is void and of no
70
legal effect. (See, e.g., Jones v. Hallahan, supra, 501 S.W.2d 588, 589 [same-sex
marriage “would not constitute a marriage” under Kentucky law]; Anonymous v.
Anonymous (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1971) 325 N.Y.S.2d 499, 501 [under New York law,
same-sex “marriage ceremony was a nullity” and “no legal relationship could be
created by it”]; McConnell v. Nooner (8th Cir. 1976) 547 F.2d 54, 55-56
[“purported” same-sex marriage of no legal effect under Minnesota law]; Adams v.
Howerton, supra, 486 F.Supp. 1119, 1122 [purported same-sex marriage has “no
legal effect” under Colorado or federal law].) The city has not cited any case in
which a same-sex marriage, performed in contravention of a state statute that bans
such marriages and that has not judicially been held unconstitutional, has been
given any legal effect.
The city and several amici curiae representing same-sex couples who
obtained marriage licenses from city officials and had certificates of registry of
marriage registered by such officials raise a number of objections to our
determining that the same-sex marriages that have been performed in California
are void and of no legal effect, but we conclude that none of these objections is
meritorious.
First, the city and amici curiae contend that the Attorney General and the
petitioners in Lewis lack standing to challenge the validity of the same-sex
marriages that already have been performed, relying upon the provisions of Family
Code section 2211, which sets forth the categories of individuals who may bring
an action to nullify a “voidable” marriage — categories that generally are limited
to one of the parties to the marriage or, where a party to the marriage is a minor or
a person incapable of giving legal consent, the parent, guardian, or conservator of
such party. Past California decisions, however, make clear that the procedural
requirements generally applicable in an action to nullify or annul a “voidable”
marriage are inapplicable when a purported marriage is void from the beginning or
71
is a legal nullity. As this court stated in Estate of Gregorson (1911) 160 Cal. 21,
26: “A marriage prohibited as incestuous or illegal and declared to be ‘void’ or
‘void from the beginning’ is a legal nullity and its validity may be asserted or
shown in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material.” (Italics
added.) In our view, the present mandate action, which seeks to compel public
officials to correct the effects of their unauthorized official conduct in issuing
marriage licenses to or registering marriage certificates of thousands of same-sex
couples, is such a proceeding, because the validity or invalidity of the same-sex
marriages authorized and registered by such officials is central to the scope of the
remedy that may and should be ordered in this case.39
The city and amici curiae additionally contend that we cannot properly
determine the validity or invalidity of the existing same-sex marriages in this
proceeding because the parties to a marriage are indispensable parties to any legal
action seeking to invalidate a marriage, and the thousands of same-sex couples
whose marriages were authorized and registered by the local authorities are not
formal parties to the present mandate proceeding. The city relies on cases
involving actions that have been brought to annul a particular marriage on the
basis of facts peculiar to that marriage, in which the courts have held the parties to
the marriage to be indispensable parties. (See, e.g., McClure v. Donovan (1949)
33 Cal.2d 717, 725.) In the present instance, by contrast, the question of the
39
Contrary to the assertion of Justice Werdegar’s concurring and dissenting
opinion (post, at p. 5), the validity or invalidity of the existing same-sex marriages
is material to this case not simply because the Attorney General has requested this
court to decide that issue, but because resolution of the issue is necessary in
determining the scope of the remedy that properly should be ordered in this
mandate action to correct, and undo the potentially disruptive consequences of, the
unauthorized actions of the city officials.
72
validity or invalidity of a same-sex marriage does not depend upon any facts that
are peculiar to any individual same-sex marriage, but rather is a purely legal
question applicable to all existing same-sex marriages, and rests on the
circumstance that the governing state statute limits marriage to a union between a
man and a woman. Under ordinary principles of stare decisis, an appellate
decision holding that, under current California statutes, a same-sex marriage
performed in California is void from its inception effectively would resolve that
legal issue with respect to all couples who had participated in same-sex marriages,
even though such couples had not been parties to the original action. Because the
validity or invalidity of same-sex marriages under current California law involves
only a pure question of law, couples who are not formal parties to this action are in
no different position than if this question of law had been presented and resolved
in an action involving some other same-sex couple rather than in an action in
which the legal arguments regarding the validity of such marriages have been
vigorously asserted not only by the city officials who authorized and registered
such marriages but also by various amici curiae representing similarly situated
same-sex couples. Requiring a separate legal proceeding to be brought to
invalidate each of the thousands of same-sex marriages, or requiring each of the
thousands of same-sex couples to be named and served as parties in the present
action, would add nothing of substance to this proceeding.
The city and amici curiae further contend that it would violate the due
process rights of the same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses and had
their marriage certificates registered by the local officials for this court to
determine the validity of same-sex marriages without giving the couples notice
and an opportunity to be heard. To begin with, there may be some question
whether an individual who, through the deliberate unauthorized conduct of a
public official, obtains a license, permit, or other status that clearly is not
73
authorized by state law, possesses a constitutionally protected property or liberty
interest that gives rise to procedural due process guarantees. (Cf., e.g., Snyder v.
City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1989) 441 N.W.2d 781, 792; Mellin v. Flood Brook
Union School Dist. (Vt. 2001) 790 A.2d 408, 421; Gunkel v. City of Emporia,
Kan. (10th Cir. 1987) 835 F.2d 1302, 1304-1305 & fns. 7, 8.) In any event, these
same-sex couples have not been denied the right to meaningfully participate in
these proceedings. Although we have not permitted them to intervene formally in
these actions as parties, our order denying intervention to a number of such
couples explicitly was without prejudice to participation as amicus curiae, and
numerous amicus curiae briefs have been filed on behalf of such couples directly
addressing the question of the validity of the existing same-sex marriages.
Accordingly, the legal arguments of such couples with regard to the question of
the validity of the existing same-sex marriages have been heard and fully
considered. Furthermore, under the procedure we adopt below (see, post, p. 78),
before the city takes corrective action with regard to the record of any particular
same-sex marriage license or same-sex marriage certificate, each affected couple
will receive individual notice and an opportunity to show that the holding of the
present opinion is not applicable to the couple.
The city and amici curiae next maintain that even if this court properly may
address the validity of the existing same-sex marriages in this proceeding, under
California law such marriages cannot be held void (or voidable, for that matter),
because there is no California statute that explicitly provides that a marriage
between two persons of the same sex or gender is void (or voidable). As we have
seen, however, Family Code section 300 explicitly defines marriage as “a personal
relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman,” and in view
of the language and legislative history of this provision (see, ante, p. 15, fn. 11),
we believe that the Legislature has made clear its intent that a same-sex marriage
74
performed in California is not a valid marriage under California law. Accordingly,
we view Family Code section 300 itself as an explicit statutory provision
establishing that the existing same-sex marriages at issue are void and invalid.
The city and amici curiae also rely upon Family Code section 306, which
provides in part that “[n]oncompliance with this part by a nonparty to the marriage
does not invalidate the marriage,” maintaining that this statute demonstrates that
even if the county clerk erred in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
such noncompliance by the county clerk (a nonparty to the marriage) does not
invalidate the marriage. In our view, section 306 — which is unofficially entitled
“Procedural requirements; effect of noncompliance” — has no application here.
The defect at issue clearly is not simply a procedural defect in the issuance of the
license or in the solemnization or registration process. Indeed, it is not simply the
invalidity or unauthorized nature of the county clerk’s action in issuing a marriage
license to a same-sex couple that renders void any marriage between a same-sex
couple. What renders such a purported marriage void is the circumstance that the
current California statutes reflect a clear legislative decision to “prohibit persons
of the same sex from entering lawful marriage.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary,
Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 23,
1977, discussed, ante, at p. 15, fn. 11.) It is that substantive legislative limitation
on the institution of marriage, and not simply the circumstance that the actions of
the county clerk or county recorder were unauthorized, that renders the existing
same-sex marriages invalid and void from the beginning.
Finally, the city urges this court to postpone the determination of the
validity of the same-sex marriages that already have been performed and
registered until a court rules on the substantive constitutional challenges to the
California marriage statutes that are now pending in superior court. From a
practical perspective, we believe it would not be prudent or wise to leave the
75
validity of these marriages in limbo for what might be a substantial period of time
given the potential confusion (for third parties, such as employers, insurers, or
other governmental entities, as well as for the affected couples) that such an
uncertain status inevitably would entail.40
In any event, we believe such a delay in decision is unwarranted on more
fundamental grounds. As we have explained, because Family Code section 300
clearly limits marriage in California to a marriage between a man and a woman
and flatly prohibits persons of the same sex from lawfully marrying in California,
the governing authorities establish that the same-sex marriages that already have
been performed are void and of no legal effect from their inception. (See, ante,
p. 70 and cases cited; see also Estate of Gregorson, supra, 160 Cal. 21, 26 [“A
marriage prohibited as . . . illegal and declared to be ‘void’ or ‘void from the
beginning’ is a legal nullity . . . .”].) In view of this well-established rule, we do
not believe it would be responsible or appropriate for this court to fail at this time
to inform the parties to the same-sex marriages and other persons whose legal
rights and responsibilities may depend upon the validity or invalidity of these
marriages that these marriages are invalid, notwithstanding the pendency of
numerous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of California’s marriage
statutes. Withholding or delaying a ruling on the current validity of the existing
same-sex marriages might lead numerous persons to make fundamental changes in
their lives or otherwise proceed on the basis of erroneous expectations, creating
potentially irreparable harm.
40
Whether or not any same-sex couple “has filed a lawsuit seeking the legal
benefits of their purported marriage” (conc. & dis. opn. of Werdegar, J., post, at
p. 2), there can be no question that the legal status of such couples has and will
continue to generate numerous questions for such couples and third parties that
must be resolved on an on-going basis.
76
Although the city and the amici curiae representing same-sex couples
suggest that these couples would prefer to live with uncertainty rather than be told
at this point that the marriages are invalid, in light of the explicit terms of Family
Code section 300 and the warning included in the same-sex marriage license
applications provided by the city (see, ante, p. 8, fn. 5) these couples clearly were
on notice that the validity of their marriages was dependent upon whether a court
would find that the city officials had authority to allow same-sex marriages. Now
that we have confirmed that the city officials lack this authority, we do not believe
that these couples have a persuasive equitable claim to have the validity of the
marriages left in doubt at this point in time, creating uncertainty and potential
harm to others who may need to know whether the marriages are valid or not.
Had the current constitutional challenges to the California marriage statutes
followed the traditional and proper course (see, ante, pp. 49-50), no same-sex
marriage would have been conducted in California prior to a judicial
determination that the current California marriage statutes are unconstitutional.
Accordingly, as part of the remedy for the city officials’ unauthorized and
unlawful actions, we believe it is appropriate to make clear that the same-sex
marriages that already have purportedly come into being must be considered void
from their inception. Of course, should the current California statutes limiting
marriage to a man and a woman ultimately be repealed or be held unconstitutional,
the affected couples then would be free to obtain lawfully authorized marriage
licenses, have their marriages lawfully solemnized, and lawfully register their
marriage certificates.41
41
Contrary to the contention of Justice Werdegar’s concurring and dissenting
opinion (post, at pp. 1-2), should the existing marriage statutes ultimately be held
unconstitutional, we do not believe that the principle of “basic fairness” or a claim
(footnote continued on next page)
77
Accordingly, to remedy the effects of the city officials’ unauthorized
actions, we shall direct the county clerk and the county recorder of the City and
County of San Francisco to take the following corrective actions under the
supervision of the California Director of Health Services, who, by statute, has
general supervisory authority over the marriage license and marriage certificate
process. (See, ante, pp. 17-19.) The county clerk and the county recorder are
directed to (1) identify all same-sex couples to whom the officials issued marriage
licenses, solemnized marriage ceremonies, or registered marriage certificates,
(2) notify these couples that this court has determined that same-sex marriages that
have been performed in California are void from their inception and a legal nullity,
and that these officials have been directed to correct their records to reflect the
invalidity of these marriage licenses and marriages, (3) provide these couples an
opportunity to demonstrate that their marriages are not same-sex marriages and
thus that the official records of their marriage licenses and marriages should not be
revised, (4) offer to refund, upon request, all marriage-related fees paid by or on
behalf of same-sex couples, and (5) make appropriate corrections to all relevant
records.
VIII
As anyone familiar with the docket of the United States Supreme Court, of
this court, or of virtually any appellate court in this nation is aware, many statutes
currently in force may give rise to constitutional challenges, and not infrequently
(footnote continued from previous page)
for “full relief” justifies placing the same-sex couples who took advantage of the
unauthorized actions of San Francisco officials in a different or better position
than other same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in other counties
throughout the state by public officials who properly fulfilled their duties in
compliance with the governing state statutes.
78
the constitutional questions presented involve issues upon which reasonable
persons, including reasonable jurists, may disagree. If every public official who is
under a statutory duty to perform a ministerial act were free to refuse to perform
that act based solely on the official’s view that the underlying statute is
unconstitutional, any semblance of a uniform rule of law quickly would disappear,
and constant and widespread judicial intervention would be required to permit the
ordinary mechanisms of government to function. This, of course, is not the system
of law with which we are familiar. Under long established principles, a statute,
once enacted, is presumed to be constitutional until it has been judicially
determined to be unconstitutional.
An executive official, of course, is free to criticize existing statutes, to
advocate their amendment or repeal, and to voice an opinion as to their
constitutionality or unconstitutionality. As we have explained, however, an
executive official who is charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a statute
generally has an obligation to execute that duty in the absence of a judicial
determination that the statute is unconstitutional, regardless of the official’s
personal view of the constitutionality of the statute.
In this case, the city has suggested that a contrary rule ― one under
which a public official charged with a ministerial duty would be free to make up
his or her own mind whether a statute is constitutional and whether it must be
obeyed ― is necessary to protect the rights of minorities. But history
demonstrates that members of minority groups, as well as individuals who are
unpopular or powerless, have the most to lose when the rule of law is
abandoned even for what appears, to the person departing from the law, to be
79
a just end.42 As observed at the outset of this opinion, granting every public
official the authority to disregard a ministerial statutory duty on the basis of the
official’s opinion that the statute is unconstitutional would be fundamentally
inconsistent with our political system’s commitment to John Adams’ vision of a
government where official action is determined not by the opinion of an
individual officeholder — but by the rule of law.
IX
For the reasons discussed above, a writ of mandate shall issue compelling
respondents to comply with the requirements and limitations of the current marriage
statutes in performing their ministerial duties under such statutes, and directing the
county clerk and the county recorder of the City and County of San Francisco to
take the following corrective actions under the supervision of the California Director
of Health Services: (1) identify all same-sex couples to whom the officials issued
marriage licenses, solemnized marriage ceremonies, or registered marriage
certificates, (2) notify these couples that this court has determined that same-sex
marriages that have been performed in California are void from their inception
and a legal nullity, and that these officials have been directed to correct their
42
The pronouncement of Sir Thomas More in the well known passage from
Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons comes to mind:
“Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
“More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
to the Devil?
“Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
“More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round
on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s
planted thick with laws from coast to coast man’s laws, not God’s and if you
cut them down and you’re just the man to do it d’you really think you could
stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit
of law, for my own safety’s sake.” (Bolt, A Man for All Seasons (1962) p. 66.)
80
records to reflect the invalidity of these marriage licenses and marriages, (3) provide
these couples an opportunity to demonstrate that their marriages are not same-sex
marriages and thus that the official records of their marriage licenses and marriages
should not be revised, (4) offer to refund, upon request, all marriage related fees
paid by or on behalf of same-sex couples, and (5) make appropriate corrections to
all relevant records.
As the prevailing parties, petitioners shall recover their costs.
GEORGE,
C.J.
WE CONCUR:
BAXTER, J.
CHIN, J.
BROWN, J.
MORENO, J.
81
CONCURRING OPINION BY MORENO, J.
I concur. The majority opinion addresses primarily the limitations on the
power of local officials to disobey statutes that may be, but have not yet been
judicially established to be, unconstitutional. I write separately to focus on the
related but distinct question of what courts should do when confronted with such
disobedience on the part of local officials. As the majority opinion suggests, a
court should not invariably refuse to decide constitutional questions arising from
local governments’ or local officials’ refusal to obey purportedly unconstitutional
statutes. Indeed, California courts under these circumstances have, on a number of
occasions, decided the underlying constitutional questions. In the present case, the
majority declines to decide the constitutional validity of Family Code section 300,
prohibiting same-sex marriage, but instead concludes that a writ of mandate
against San Francisco’s (the city’s) local officials is justified because they
exceeded their ministerial authority. As elaborated below, I agree that under these
somewhat unusual circumstances, local officials’ disobedience of the statute
justifies this court’s issuance of a writ of mandate against those officials before the
underlying constitutional question has been adjudicated.
At the outset, I review the requirements for obtaining a writ of mandate. To
obtain writ relief a petitioner must show: “ ‘(1) A clear, present and usually
1
ministerial duty on the part of the respondent . . . ; and (2) a clear, present and
beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty . . . .’ ” (Santa Clara
County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539-540.) Also
required is “the lack of any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the usual course of
law . . . .” (Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Ross (1964) 61 Cal.2d 199, 203.) Although
the writ of mandate generally must issue if the above requirements are clearly met
(see May v. Board of Directors (1949) 34 Cal.2d 125, 133-134), the writ of mandate
is an equitable remedy that will not issue if it is contrary to “promoting the ends of
justice.” (McDaniel v. City etc. of San Francisco (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 356, 361;
see also Bartholomae Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1941) 18 Cal.2d 726, 730.)
The local officials in the present case have a clear ministerial duty to issue
marriage licenses in conformance with state statute and have violated that duty. The
Attorney General, and for that matter the plaintiffs in Lewis v. Alfaro, have a
substantial right to ensure that marriage licenses conform to the statute. (See Bd. of
Soc. Welfare v. County of L.A. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 98, 100-101.) But when a court is
asked to grant a writ of mandate to enforce a statute over which hangs a substantial
cloud of unconstitutionality, the above-stated principles dictate that a court at least has
the discretion to refuse to issue the writ until the underlying constitutional question
has been decided.
How should courts exercise that discretion? In California, generally
speaking, courts faced with local governments’ or local officials’ refusal to obey
assertedly unconstitutional statutes have decided the constitutional question before
determining whether a writ or other requested relief should issue. (See, e.g.,
County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278 [county refused to
obey as unconstitutional a state statute mandating binding arbitration for local
agencies that reach negotiating impasse with police and firefighters]; Star-Kist
Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1 [county refused to act in
2
accordance with a state revenue statute it had judged, correctly, to violate the U.S.
Const.]; Zee Toys, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 763, 777-
781 [same]; Paso Robles etc. Hospital Dist. v. Negley (1946) 29 Cal.2d 203 [local
financial officer refused to issue bonds and defended a lawsuit in order to
expeditiously settle the constitutional validity of the bond issue]; Denman v.
Broderick (1896) 111 Cal. 96, 105 [local official refused to spend public funds
required by a statute believed to be unconstitutional “special legislation”]; City of
Oakland v. Digre (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 99 [local official refused to enforce a
parcel tax believed to be unconstitutional and required the city to demonstrate its
constitutionality in court]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20
Cal.App.3d 1, 14-15 [county board of supervisors refused to issue permission for
timber operations, although such refusal was not authorized under rules
promulgated pursuant to state statute].) Indeed, any time a city determines that a
state law is contrary to its own constitutional prerogative of self-governance and
therefore refuses to obey the law, it is making a constitutional determination.
(See, e.g., Bishop v. City of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal.3d 56, 63-64 [determining that
state prevailing wage law for public works projects was not binding on cities].)
As the majority states, “the classic understanding of the separation of powers
doctrine [is] that the legislative power is the power to enact statutes, the executive
power is the power to execute or enforce statutes, and the judicial power is the power
to interpret statutes and to determine their constitutionality.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p.
4.) But “the separation of powers doctrine does not create an absolute or rigid
division of functions.” (Ibid.) As the above cases suggest, local officials sometimes
exercise their authority to preliminarily determine that a statute that directly affects
the local government’s functioning is unconstitutional and, in some circumstances,
refuse to obey that statute as a means of bringing the constitutional challenge. This
preliminary determination is the exercise of an executive function. Local officials and
3
agencies do not “arrogate[] to [the local executive] core functions of the . . . judicial
branch” in violation of the separation of powers (Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist.
v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 297-298), but rather raise constitutional
issues for the courts to ultimately decide.
In my view, there are at least three types of situations in which a local
government’s disobedience of a statute would be reasonable. In these situations,
courts asked to grant a writ of mandate to compel the local agency to obey the
statute should therefore address the underlying constitutional issue rather than
simply conclude the local governmental entity exceeded its ministerial authority.
First, there are some cases in which the statute in question violates a “clearly
established . . . constitutional right” (Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800,
818). An executive decision not to spend resources to comply with a clearly
unconstitutional statute is a reasonable exercise of the local executive power and
does not usurp a core judicial function. Indeed, refusing to enforce clearly
unconstitutional statutes saves the resources of both the executive and the
judiciary.
A second category of “disobedience” cases involves a local official or
governmental entity disobeying a statute when there is a substantial question as to
its constitutionality and the statute governs matters integral to a locality’s limited
power of self-governance. In these cases, a local entity or official is directly
affected by the statute and in a unique position to challenge it. As the above cases
illustrate, local entities and officials have challenged statutes to determine the
validity of a bond, or the payment of a government salary for a position
unconstitutionally created, or an exemption to a local tax that assertedly violates
the commerce clause, or a statute that intrudes on local matters of city or county
employee compensation. It is noteworthy that in virtually all the above cases, the
local agency’s or official’s refusal to obey an assertedly unconstitutional statute
4
had the effect of preserving the status quo, pending judicial resolution of the
matter, thereby minimizing interference with the judicial function.
Perhaps in some of these cases localities could have proceeded by obtaining
declaratory relief as to a statute’s unconstitutionality, rather than by disobeying the
statute. In other cases, an actual controversy necessary for declaratory relief may
have been lacking. In any case, the fact that the local government agency did not
proceed by means of declaratory relief provided no insurmountable obstacle to a
court deciding the underlying constitutional issue raised by the agency’s
disobedience. (See, e.g., County of Riverside v. Superior Court, supra, 30 Cal.4th
278, 283.)1 Of course, if a court determines that interim relief to compel a
government agency to obey a statute is appropriate, it may grant such relief before
the constitutional question is ultimately adjudicated.
A third possible category of cases in which city officials might legitimately
disobey statutes of doubtful constitutionality are those in which the question of a
statute’s constitutionality is substantial, and irreparable harm may result to
individuals to which the local government agency has some protective obligation
be they employees, or students of a public college, or patrons of a public
library, or patients in a public hospital, or in some cases simply residents of the
city. Again, a court asked to grant a writ of mandate could conclude that a delay
in granting the writ pending resolution of the underlying constitutional question is
justified. To issue a writ enforcing a statute that may be unconstitutional, and that
will work irreparable harm, would not “promote[] the ends of justice” (McDaniel
1
The above dictum does not apply when the Legislature has required that a
governmental entity challenge an assertedly unconstitutional statute by means of
declaratory relief. (See, e.g., Rev. & Tax. Code, § 538 [county assessor to
challenge constitutionality of state revenue statute by requesting declaratory relief
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060].)
5
v. City etc. of San Francisco, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at pp. 360-361), and a court
has the discretion to delay such issuance until the underlying constitutional
question is resolved.
The present case is quite different from the above situations. First, as the
majority demonstrates, the unconstitutionality of Family Code section 300 is not
clearly established by either state or federal constitutional precedent, and certainly
not from the language of the constitutional provisions themselves. Nor does this
case pertain to a statute that interferes with a city’s or county’s limited power of
self-governance that these entities are in a unique position to challenge. Rather,
local officials in this case perform a ministerial function pursuant to the state
marriage law. Unlike the cases cited above, in which the constitutionality of a
statute is likely to go unchallenged if a local governmental entity does not do so,
Family Code section 300 limits individual rights, and those individuals subject to
that limitation are in the best position to challenge it.
Nor does the present case fit the third category of cases in which a city
refuses to enforce a law so as to protect its citizens from irreparable harm. The
only harm caused here is a delay in the ability of same-sex couples to get married
while the constitutional issue is being adjudicated. But that delay will occur
whether or not we grant a writ of mandate against the city in this case. Put another
way, local officials have no real power to marry same-sex couples, given the
statutory prohibition against doing so. What was within their power, prior to our
issuance of a stay, was to issue licenses of indeterminate legal status. The exercise
of the court’s mandate power to preclude local officials from continuing this
course of action, and voiding the licenses already issued, brings no irreparable
harm to the individuals who have received or might receive such licenses.
In sum, the city advances no plausible reason why it had to disobey the
statute in question. Even so, it might have been appropriate to have delayed the
6
issuance of a writ of mandate against it until the underlying constitutional question
had been adjudicated if, for example, the city had issued a single “test case” same-
sex marriage license. But it went far beyond a test case. It issued thousands of
these marriage licenses. As such, the city went well beyond making a preliminary
determination of the statute’s unconstitutionality or performing an act that would
bring the constitutional issue to the courts. Rather, city officials drastically and
repeatedly altered the status quo based on their constitutional determination,
issuing a multitude of licenses that purported to have an independent legal effect,
contrary to their ministerial duty and statutory obligation and prior to any judicial
determination of the statute’s unconstitutionality. By such dramatic overreaching,
these officials trespassed on a core judicial function of deciding the
constitutionality of statutes and endowed the issue of their authority to disobey the
statute with a life of its own, independent of the underlying constitutional issue. I
therefore agree with the majority that a writ of mandate is rightly issued against
the city and its officials in this case.
I reiterate what is clear in the majority opinion. Our holding in this case in
no way expresses or implies a view on the underlying issue of the constitutionality
of a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage. That issue will be addressed in the
context of litigation in which the issue is properly raised. (See Goodridge v.
Department of Pub. Health (Mass. 2003) 798 N.E.2d 941.)
MORENO, J.
7
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY KENNARD, J.
I concur in the judgment, except insofar as it declares void some 4,000
marriages performed in reliance on the gender-neutral marriage licenses1 issued in
the City and County of San Francisco. Although I agree with the majority that San
Francisco public officials exceeded their authority when they issued those
licenses, and that the licenses themselves are therefore invalid, I would refrain
from determining here, in a proceeding from which the persons whose marriages
are at issue have been excluded, the validity of the marriages solemnized under
those licenses. That determination should be made after the constitutionality of
California laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples has been
authoritatively resolved through judicial proceedings now pending in the courts of
California.
1
As the majority explains, the license application was altered “by
eliminating the terms ‘bride,’ ‘groom,’ and ‘unmarried man and unmarried
woman,’ and by replacing them with the terms ‘first applicant,’ ‘second applicant,’
and ‘unmarried individuals.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 7.)
1
I
Like the majority, I conclude that officials in the City and County of San
Francisco exceeded their authority when they issued gender-neutral marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, and I agree with the majority that those officials may
not justify their actions on the ground that state laws restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples violate the state or the federal Constitution. The cases
discussed by the majority demonstrate, in my view, that a public official may
refuse to enforce a statute on constitutional grounds only in these situations:
(1) when the statute’s unconstitutionality is obvious beyond dispute in light of
unambiguous constitutional language or controlling judicial decisions; (2) when
refraining from enforcement is necessary to preserve the status quo and to prevent
irreparable harm pending judicial determination of a legitimate and substantial
constitutional question about the statute’s validity; (3) when enforcing the statute
could put the public official at risk for substantial personal liability; or (4) when
refraining from enforcement is the only practical means to obtain a judicial
determination of the constitutional question. (See Field, The Effect of an
Unconstitutional Statute (1935, reprint ed. 1971) p. 119 et seq.; Note, Right of
Ministerial Officer to Raise Defense of Unconstitutionality in Mandamus
Proceeding (1931) 15 Minn. L.Rev. 340; Rapacz, Protection of Officers Who Act
Under Unconstitutional Statutes (1927) 11 Minn. L.Rev. 585; Note, Who Can Set
Up Unconstitutionality — Whether Public Official Has Sufficient Interest (1920)
34 Harv. L.Rev. 86.) Because none of these situations is present here, as I explain
below, the public officials acted wrongly in refusing to enforce the opposite-sex
restriction in California’s marriage laws.
2
A. Indisputably Unconstitutional Law
In restricting marriages to couples consisting of one woman and one man,
California’s marriage laws are not plainly or obviously unconstitutional under
either the state or the federal Constitution. Neither Constitution expressly
prohibits limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and neither Constitution
expressly grants any person a right to marry someone of the same sex. Nor does
any judicial decision establish beyond reasonable dispute that restricting marriage
to heterosexual couples violates any provision of the California Constitution or the
United States Constitution.
Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on
all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of
equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held
that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not
violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was
appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28
U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high
court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker
v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.)
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the
ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the
merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of
federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v.
Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented
and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.)
3
Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810,
prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a
state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal
protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the
high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.)
That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions
on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal
developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at
p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal
developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.
The San Francisco public officials have argued that the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558, holding
unconstitutional a state law “making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to
engage in certain intimate sexual conduct” (id. at p. 562), amounts to a doctrinal
development that releases courts and public officials from any obligation to obey
the high court’s decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810. Although
Lawrence represents a significant shift in the high court’s view of constitutional
protections for same-sex relationships, the majority in Lawrence carefully pointed
out that “there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at
homosexual conduct as a distinct matter” (Lawrence v. Texas, supra, at p. 568)
and that the case “d[id] not involve whether the government must give formal
recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter” (id. at
p. 578). Because there is a long history in this country of defining marriage as a
relation between one man and one woman, and because marriage laws do involve
formal government recognition of relationships, the high court’s decision in
4
Lawrence did not undermine the authority of Baker v. Nelson to such a degree that
a lower federal or state court, much less a public official, could disregard it. Until
the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, which it has not yet done, Baker
v. Nelson defines federal constitutional law on the question whether a state may
deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
Because neither the federal nor the California Constitution contains any
provision directly and expressly guaranteeing a right to marry another person of
the same sex, and because no court has ever decided that either Constitution
confers that right, this is not a situation in which a public official refused to
enforce a law that was obviously and indisputably unconstitutional.
B. Preserving the Status Quo to Prevent Serious Harm
Nor was this a situation in which a public official, by temporarily refraining
from enforcing a state law, merely preserved the status quo to prevent potentially
irreparable harm pending judicial determination of a legitimate and substantial
constitutional question about the law’s validity. By issuing licenses authorizing
same-sex marriages, the San Francisco public officials did not preserve a status
quo, but instead they altered the status quo in that California law has always
prohibited same-sex marriage.
In 1977, the Legislature amended Family Code section 300 to specify that
marriage is a relation “between a man and a woman.” (See maj. opn., ante, at
p. 15, fn. 11.) At the March 2000 election, the voters approved Proposition 22,
which enacted Family Code section 308.5 declaring that “[o]nly marriage between
a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”2 But those statutory
2
Although California law has expressly restricted matrimony to heterosexual
couples, it has also extended most of the financial and other benefits of marriage
(footnote continued on next page)
5
measures did not change existing law. Since the earliest days of statehood,
California has recognized only opposite-sex marriages. (See, e.g., Mott v. Mott
(1890) 82 Cal. 413, 416 [quoting legal dictionary’s definition of marriage as a
contract “ ‘by which a man and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other
during their joint lives, and to discharge toward each other the duties imposed by
law on the relation of husband and wife’ ”].) In issuing gender-neutral marriage
licenses, therefore, San Francisco public officials could not have intended merely
a temporary or interim preservation of an existing state of affairs pending a
judicial determination of a newly enacted law’s constitutionality. Instead, as their
public statements indicated, they issued those licenses to effect a fundamental and
permanent change in traditional marriage eligibility requirements, based on their
own views about constitutional questions. In so doing, they exceeded their
authority.
C. Public Officials’ Personal Liability
This was not a situation in which public officials had reason to fear they
might be held personally liable in damages for enforcing a constitutionally invalid
state law. In a federal civil rights action brought under 42 United States Code
section 1983, a public official may not be held personally liable for enforcing a
state law that violates a federal constitutional right unless the “contours of the
right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what
he is doing violates that right.” (Anderson v. Creighton (1987) 483 U.S. 635, 640;
accord, Saucier v. Katz (2001) 533 U.S. 194, 202; Wilson v. Layne (1999) 526
(footnote continued from previous page)
to same-sex couples through domestic partner legislation. (See, e.g., Fam. Code,
§ 297 et seq., Stats. 2003, ch. 421, operative Jan. 1, 2005.)
6
U.S. 603, 614-615.) Because the United States Supreme Court has determined
that a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the federal
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810), no reasonable public official
could conclude that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples would violate
a right that was clearly established under the federal Constitution. Accordingly,
federal civil rights law could not impose personal liability on local officials in
California for enforcing California’s same-sex marriage prohibition. “[A]bsent
contrary direction, state officials and those with whom they deal are entitled to
rely on a presumptively valid state statute, enacted in good faith and by no means
plainly unlawful.” (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1973) 411 U.S. 192, 208-209 (plur. opn.
of Burger, C. J.).)
Nor was there was any reasonable basis for local officials to anticipate
personal liability under the California Constitution or California civil rights laws
for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Government Code section
820.6 provides immunity for public employees acting in good faith, without
malice, under a statute that proves to be unconstitutional. Because same-sex
marriage has never been legally authorized in California, the California
Constitution does not expressly grant a right to same-sex marriage, and no judicial
decision by any California court has ever suggested, much less held, that state
laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the California Constitution,
Government Code section 820.6 would immunize any public official from
personal liability for enforcing the same-sex marriage prohibition should that
prohibition, at some later time, be held to violate the California Constitution.
D. Necessity of Nonenforcement to Obtain Judicial Resolution
Finally, this is not a situation in which a public official’s nonenforcement
of a law was the only practical way to obtain a judicial determination of that law’s
7
constitutionality. Just as the constitutionality of California’s prohibition against
interracial marriage was properly challenged by a mixed-race couple who were
denied a marriage license (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711), the
constitutionality of California’s prohibition against same-sex marriage could have
been readily challenged at any time through a lawsuit brought by a same-sex
couple who had been denied a marriage license. Indeed, challenges of this sort are
now pending in the superior court. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 75.)
E. Policy Grounds for General Rule Prohibiting Nonenforcement on
Constitutional Grounds
As the majority points out (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 2-4, 63-64), confusion
and chaos would ensue if local public officials in each of California’s 58 counties
could separately and independently decide not to enforce long-established laws
with which they disagreed, based on idiosyncratic readings of broadly worded
constitutional provisions. To ensure uniformity and consistency in the statewide
application and enforcement of duly enacted and presumptively valid statutes, the
authority of public officials to decline enforcement of state laws, in the absence of
a judicial determination of invalidity, based on the officials’ own constitutional
determinations, is and must be carefully and narrowly limited. I agree with the
majority that San Francisco public officials exceeded those limits when they
declined to enforce state marriage laws by issuing gender-neutral marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
II
Although I agree with the majority that San Francisco officials exceeded
their authority when they issued gender-neutral marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, I do not agree with all the reasoning that the majority offers in support of
that conclusion. In particular, I do not agree that a “line of decisions” had
established, before the 1978 enactment of section 3.5 of article III of the California
8
Constitution, that “only administrative agencies constitutionally authorized to
exercise judicial power have the authority to determine the constitutional validity
of statutes.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 44.)
The majority does not identify any pre-1978 decision holding that a
nonconstitutional administrative agency, during quasi-judicial administrative
proceedings, lacked authority to determine a statute’s constitutionality. The
majority asserts that this court so held in State of California v. Superior Court
(Veta) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 39.) But this court there
decided only that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not
apply to a constitutional challenge to the statute from which the administrative
agency derived its authority. (State of California v. Superior Court (Veta), supra,
at p. 251.) In concluding that a litigant was not required during quasi-judicial
administrative proceedings to make a constitutional challenge to the statute that
created the agency, this court explained that “[i]t would be heroic indeed to
compel a party to appear before an administrative body to challenge its very
existence and to expect a dispassionate hearing before its preponderantly lay
membership on the constitutionality of the statute establishing its status and
functions.” (Ibid.) This court did not state, or even imply, that an administrative
agency lacked authority to resolve constitutional issues that a litigant might
present.
I also see no need for, and do not join, the majority’s observations on topics
far removed from the issue presented here, such as the powers of the President of
the United States (maj. opn., ante, at p. 48, fn. 26) and the existence of certain
legal defenses to war crimes charges (id. at p. 52, fn. 30). These issues are not
before this court.
9
III
Because I agree with the majority that San Francisco’s public officials
exceeded their authority when they issued gender-neutral marriage licenses to
same-sex couples, I concur in the judgment insofar as it requires those officials to
comply with state marriage laws, to identify the same-sex couples to whom
gender-neutral marriage licenses were issued, to notify those couples that their
marriage licenses are invalid, to offer refunds of marriage license fees collected,
and to make appropriate corrections to all relevant records. But I would not
require notification that the marriages themselves “are void from their inception
and a legal nullity.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 80.)
Although a marriage license is a requirement for a valid marriage (Fam.
Code, §§ 300, 350), some defects in a marriage license do not invalidate the
marriage. (See id., § 306; see also, e.g., Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.
(1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 805, 809 [applicant’s use of false names on license
application did not invalidate marriage].) Whether the issuance of a gender-
neutral license to a same-sex couple, in violation of state laws restricting marriage
to opposite-sex couples, is a defect that precludes any possibility of a valid
marriage may well depend upon resolution of the constitutional validity of that
statutory restriction. If the restriction is constitutional, then a marriage between
persons of the same sex would be a legal impossibility, and no marriage would
ever have existed. But if the restriction violates a fundamental constitutional right,
the situation could be quite different. A court might then be required to determine
the validity of same-sex marriages that had been performed before the laws
prohibiting those marriages had been invalidated on constitutional grounds.
When a court has declared a law unconstitutional, questions about the effect
of that determination on prior actions, events, and transactions “are among the
most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and
10
federal, and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement
of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.” (Chicot
County Dist. v. Bank (1940) 308 U.S. 371, 374; accord, Lemon v. Kurtzman,
supra, 411 U.S. at p. 198.) This court has acknowledged that, in appropriate
circumstances, an unconstitutional statute may be judicially reformed to
retroactively extend its benefits to a class that the statute expressly but improperly
excluded. (Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 624-625
(lead opn. of Lucas, C. J.), 685 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.) [joining in pt. III
of lead opn.].) Thus, it is possible, though by no means certain, that if the state
marriage laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were held to violate the state
Constitution, same-sex marriages performed before that determination could then
be recognized as valid.
Although the United States Supreme Court has determined that there is no
right to same-sex marriage under the federal Constitution (Baker v. Nelson, supra,
409 U.S. 810), courts in other states construing their own state Constitutions in
recent years have reached differing conclusions on this question. (Compare
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Mass. 2003) 798 N.E.2d 941 [denying
marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates Massachusetts Constitution] with
Standhardt v. Sup. Ct. (Ariz.Ct.App. 2003) 77 P.3d 451 [no right to same-sex
marriage under Arizona Constitution].) Recognizing the difficulty and seriousness
of the constitutional question, which is now presented in pending superior court
actions, this court has declined to address it in this case. Until that constitutional
issue has been finally resolved under the California Constitution, it is premature
and unwise to assert, as the majority essentially does, that the thousands of same-
sex weddings performed in San Francisco were empty and meaningless
ceremonies in the eyes of the law.
11
For many, marriage is the most significant and most highly treasured
experience in a lifetime. Individuals in loving same-sex relationships have waited
years, sometimes several decades, for a chance to wed, yearning to obtain the
public validation that only marriage can give. In recognition of that, this court
should proceed most cautiously in resolving the ultimate question of the validity of
the same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco, even though those marriages
were performed under licenses issued by San Francisco public officials without
proper authority and in violation of state law. Because the licenses were issued
without proper authorization, and in the absence of a judicial determination that
the state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, employers and
other third parties would be under no legal obligation to recognize the validity of
any of the same-sex marriages at issue here. Should the pending lawsuits
ultimately be resolved by a determination that the opposite-sex marriage
restriction is constitutionally invalid—an issue on which I express no opinion—it
would then be the appropriate time to address the validity of previously
solemnized same-sex marriages.
KENNARD,
J.
12
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY WERDEGAR, J.
I agree with the majority that San Francisco officials violated the Family
Code by licensing marriages between persons of the same sex. Accordingly, I
concur in the decision to order those officials to comply with the existing marriage
statutes unless and until they are determined to be unconstitutional. Because
constitutional challenges are pending in the lower courts, to order city officials not
to license additional same-sex marriages in the meantime is an appropriate way to
preserve the status quo pending the outcome of that litigation. That, however, is
the extent of my agreement with the majority.
I.
I do not join in the majority’s decision to address the validity of the
marriages already performed and to declare them void. My concern here is not for
the future of same-sex marriage. That question is not before us and, like the
majority, I intimate no view on it. My concern, rather, is for basic fairness in
judicial process. The superior court is presently considering whether the state
statutes that limit marriage to “a man and a woman” (e.g., Fam. Code, § 300)
violate the state and federal Constitutions. The same-sex couples challenging
those statutes claim the state has, without sufficient justification, denied the
fundamental right to marry (e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 383;
Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12; Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711,
1
714-715) to a class of persons defined by gender or sexual orientation. Should the
relevant statutes be held unconstitutional, the relief to which the purportedly
married couples would be entitled would normally include recognition of their
marriages. By analogy, interracial marriages that were void under antimiscegeny
statutes at the time they were solemnized were nevertheless recognized as valid
after the high court rejected those laws in Loving v. Virginia. (E.g., Dick v. Reaves
(Okla. 1967) 434 P.2d 295, 298.) By postponing a ruling on this issue, we could
preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the constitutional litigation.
Instead, by declaring the marriages “void and of no legal effect from their
inception” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 70), the majority permanently deprives future
courts of the ability to award full relief in the event the existing statutes are held
unconstitutional. This premature decision can in no sense be thought to represent
fair judicial process.
The majority asserts that “it would not be prudent or wise to leave the
validity of these marriages in limbo for what might be a substantial period of time
given the potential confusion (for third parties, such as employers, insurers, or
other governmental entities, as well as for the affected couples) that such an
uncertain status inevitably would entail.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 75-76.)
Nowhere in the opinion, however, does the majority note that any same-sex couple
has filed a lawsuit seeking the legal benefits of their purported marriage. Nor is
the absence of such lawsuits surprising, since any reasonable court would stay
such actions pending the outcome of the ongoing constitutional litigation.1
1
The majority does note that “officials of the federal Social Security
Administration had raised questions regarding that agency’s processing of name-
change applications resulting from California marriages” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 9),
but this is unlikely to be a serious problem because San Francisco used a
(footnote continued on next page)
2
The majority’s decision to declare the existing marriages void is unfair for
the additional reason that the affected couples have not been joined as parties or
given notice and an opportunity to appear. On March 12, 2004, we denied all
petitions to intervene filed by affected couples. That ruling made sense at the time
it was announced because our prior order of March 11, 2004, which specified the
issues to be briefed and argued, did not identify the validity of the existing
marriages as an issue. Only on April 14, 2004, after having denied the petitions to
intervene, did the court identify and solicit briefing on the issue of the marriages’
validity. To declare marriages void after denying requests by the purported
spouses to appear in court as parties and be heard on the matter is hard to justify,
to say the least.2
The majority counters that “the legal arguments of such couples with regard
to the question of the validity of the existing same-sex marriages have been heard
and fully considered.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 74.) But this is a claim a court may
not in good conscience make unless it has given, to the persons whose rights it is
purporting to adjudicate, notice and the opportunity to appear. This is the
irreducible minimum of due process, even in cases involving numerous parties.
(See Mullane v. Central Hannover Tr. Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 314-315.)
Amicus curiae briefs, which any member of the public may ask to file and which
(footnote continued from previous page)
nonstandard, easily recognizable form for licensing same-sex marriages (id., at
pp. 7-8, 19-20).
2
Compare Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a): “A person
who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the
action if . . . (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so
situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical
matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest . . . .”
3
the court has no obligation to read, cannot seriously be thought to satisfy these
requirements. The majority writes that “requiring each of the thousands of same-
sex couples to be named and served as parties in the present action, would add
nothing of substance to this proceeding.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 73.) Of course,
the same argument can be made in many class actions with respect to the absent
members of the class, but due process still gives each class member the right to
notice and the opportunity to appear. (Mullane v. Central Hannover Tr. Co.,
supra, 339 U.S. at pp. 314-315.) Here, notice has been given to none of the 4,000
affected couples; and even the 11 same-sex couples who affirmatively sought to
intervene were denied the opportunity to appear. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 74.) What
the majority has done, in effect, is to give petitioners the benefit of an action
against a defendant class of same-sex couples free of the burden of procedural due
process. If the majority truly desired to hear the views of the same-sex couples
whose rights it is adjudicating, it would not proceed in absentia.
Aware of this problem, the majority offers a specious imitation of due
process by ordering the city to notify the same-sex couples that this court has
decided their marriages are void, and to “provide these couples an opportunity to
demonstrate that their marriages are not same-sex marriages” before canceling
their marriage records. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 80, 81; see also id., at p. 74.) This
procedure may prevent the city from mistakenly deleting the records of
heterosexual marriages, but it cannot benefit any same-sex couple. Notice after
the fact that one’s rights have been adjudicated is not due process.
The majority attempts to justify the procedural shortcuts it is taking by
invoking the rule that “[a] marriage prohibited as . . . illegal and declared to be
‘void’ or ‘void from the beginning’ is a legal nullity and its validity may be
asserted or shown in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be
material.” (Estate of Gregorson (1911) 160 Cal. 21, 26, quoted in maj. opn., ante,
4
at p. 72.) But that rule, until today, has permitted persons other than spouses to
challenge the validity of a marriage only as and when necessary to resolve another
issue in the case, for example, the legitimacy of an heir’s claim to property or an
assertion of marital privilege. In essence, the Gregorson rule simply recognizes
that a litigant whose claim or defense depends on the validity or invalidity of a
marriage may introduce evidence to prove the point.3 We have never held that
this type of collateral attack on a marriage has any binding effect on nonparties to
the action. A court’s refusal in the course of a criminal trial to recognize a claim
of marital privilege, for example, does not compel the State Office of Vital
Records to destroy a record of the marriage. The majority asserts that the question
of the existing marriages’ validity or invalidity is material because it is “central to
the scope of the remedy that may and should be ordered in this case.” (Maj. opn.,
ante, at p. 72, italics added.) But this is just another way of saying the question is
material because the Attorney General has asked us to decide it. With this
reasoning, the majority assumes the conclusion and converts the Gregorson rule
into a pretext for denying fundamental fairness.
3
For example, Estate of Elliott (1913) 165 Cal. 339, 343 (decedent’s
daughter may challenge purported marriage of decedent to person seeking
appointment as administrator); Estate of Stark (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 209, 215-216
(heirs may challenge marriage of decedent’s parents to show that other purported
heirs were illegitimate and, thus, lack standing to contest the will); People v. Little
(1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 797, 800-801 (the People in a criminal case may challenge
defendant’s marriage to an alleged coconspirator in order to avoid the rule that
spouses cannot commit the crime of conspiracy); People v. MacDonald (1938) 24
Cal.App.2d 702, 704-705 (the People in a criminal case may challenge defendant’s
marriage to a witness in order to defeat a claim of spousal privilege); People v.
Glab (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 528, 535 (same).
5
II.
I also do not join in the majority’s unnecessary, wide-ranging comments on
the respective powers of the judicial and executive branches of government.
The ostensible occasion for the majority’s comments—a threat to the rule
of law (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 3, 79-80)—seems an extravagant characterization of
recent events. On March 11, 2004, when we assumed jurisdiction and issued an
interim order directing San Francisco officials to cease licensing same-sex
marriages, those officials immediately stopped. Apparently the only reason they
had not stopped earlier is that the lower courts had denied similar applications for
interim relief. While city officials evidently understood their oaths of office as
commanding obedience to the Constitution rather than to the marriage statutes
they believed to be unconstitutional, those officials never so much as hinted that
they would not respect the authority of the courts to decide the matter. Indeed, not
only did our interim order meet with immediate, unreserved compliance by city
officials, but the same order apparently sufficed to recall to duty any other public
officials who might privately have been thinking to follow San Francisco’s lead.
In the meantime, not one of California’s 58 counties or over 400 municipalities
has licensed a same-sex marriage.
Under these circumstances, I see no justification for asserting a broad claim
of power over the executive branch. Make no mistake, the majority does assert
such a claim by holding that executive officers must follow statutory rather than
constitutional law until a court gives them permission in advance to do otherwise.
For the judiciary to assert such power over the executive branch is fundamentally
misguided. As the high court has explained, “[i]n the performance of assigned
constitutional duties each branch of the Government must initially interpret the
Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great
respect from the others.” (United States v. Nixon (1974) 418 U.S. 683, 703, italics
6
added.) To recognize that an executive officer has the practical freedom to act
based on an interpretation of the Constitution that may ultimately prove to be
wrong does not mean the rule of law has collapsed. So long as the courts remain
open to hear legal challenges to executive conduct, so long as the courts have
power to enjoin such conduct pending final determination of its legality, and so
long as the other branches acknowledge the courts’ role as “ ‘ultimate interpreter
of the Constitution’ ” (id., at p. 704, quoting Baker v. Carr (1962) 369 U.S. 186,
211) in matters properly within their jurisdiction, no genuine threat to the rule of
law exists. San Francisco’s compliance with our interim order eloquently
demonstrates this.
Furthermore, a rule requiring an executive officer to seek a court’s
permission before declining to comply with an apparently unconstitutional statute
is fundamentally at odds with the separation of powers and, in many cases,
unenforceable. The executive branch is necessarily active, managing events as
they occur. The judicial branch is necessarily reactive, waiting until invited to
serve as neutral referee. The executive branch does not await the courts’ pleasure.
A rule to the contrary, though perhaps enforceable against local officials in some
cases, will be impossible to enforce against executive officers who exercise a
greater share of the state’s power, such as a Governor or an Attorney General. By
happy tradition in this country, executive officers have generally acquiesced in the
judicial branch’s traditional claim of final authority to resolve constitutional
disputes. (Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137, 176; see also United States v.
Nixon, supra, 418 U.S. 683, 703.) But a court can never afford to forget that the
judiciary “may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment;
and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy
of its judgments.” (Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78 (Willis ed. 1982) p. 394.)
7
Accordingly, we are ill advised to announce categorical rules that will not stand
the test of harder cases.
The majority acknowledges that “legislators and executive officials may
take into account constitutional considerations in making discretionary decisions
within their authorized sphere of action — such as whether to enact or veto
proposed legislation or exercise prosecutorial discretion.” (Maj. opn., ante, at
p. 4.) But the majority views executive officers exercising “ministerial” functions
as statutory automatons, denied even the scope to obey their oaths of office to
follow the Constitution. (Ibid.) Contrary to the majority, I do not find the
purported distinction between discretionary and ministerial functions helpful in
this context. Were not state officials performing ministerial functions when,
strictly enforcing state segregation laws in the years following Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, they refused to admit African-American pupils to
all-White schools until the courts had applied Brown’s decision about a Kansas
school system to each state’s law? We formerly believed that school officials’
oaths of office to obey the Constitution had sufficient gravity in such cases to
permit them to obey the higher law, even before the courts had spoken state by
state. (Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (1976) 18
Cal.3d 308, 311, fn. 2 [3d par.].) So, too, did the United States Supreme Court.
(Cooper v. Aaron (1958) 358 U.S. 1, 18-20.) Today, in contrast, the majority
equivocates on this point (see maj. opn., ante, at pp. 53-54) and writes that “a
public official ‘faithfully upholds the Constitution by complying with the
mandates of the Legislature, leaving to courts the decision whether those mandates
are invalid’ ” (id., at p. 51, quoting Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public
Utilities Com., supra, at p. 319 (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.)). But as history
demonstrates, however convenient the majority’s view may be in dealing with
8
subordinate officers within a governmental hierarchy, that view is not entirely
correct.
The majority’s strong view of judicial power over the executive branch
leads it to suggest, albeit without actually so holding, that a state may properly
condition on advance judicial approval its executive officers’ duty to obey even
the federal Constitution. The majority writes, for example, that “[t]he city has not
cited any case holding that the federal Constitution prohibits a state from defining
the authority of a state’s executive officials in a manner that requires such officials
to comply with a clearly applicable statute unless and until such a statute is
judicially determined to be unconstitutional” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 65-66), and
that “ ‘the power of a public officer to question the constitutionality of a statute as
an excuse for refusing to enforce it . . . is a purely local question’ [citation] — that
is, purely a question of state (not federal) law” (id., at p. 68, quoting Smith v.
Indiana (1903) 191 U.S. 138, 148, italics in maj. opn.).4
4
In Smith v. Indiana, supra, 191 U.S. 138, the high court held only that it
would not necessarily recognize a state official’s standing to challenge a state law
on federal grounds. (See id., at pp. 148-150.) Even on this narrow point, Smith
has not been consistently followed. (See Board of Education v. Allen (1968) 392
U.S. 236, 241, fn. 5 [local school officials permitted to challenge under the federal
Constitution a state statute requiring them to purchase and loan textbooks to
parochial school pupils]; Coleman v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 433, 438 & fn. 3
[state legislators permitted to challenge under the federal Constitution state’s
procedures for recording votes on constitutional amendments]; cf. id., at p. 466
(separate opn. of Frankfurter, J., citing Smith); Akron Board of Ed. v. State Board
of Ed. of Ohio (6th Cir. 1974) 490 F.2d 1285, 1290-1291, cert. den. sub nom. State
Board of Education of Ohio v. Akron Board of Education (1974) 417 U.S. 932
[local school officials permitted to challenge under the federal Constitution state
officials’ decision to transfer White students from desegregated schools to all-
White schools]; cf. Akron Board of Ed. v. State Board of Ed. of Ohio, supra, 490
F.2d at p. 1296 (conc. & dis. opn. of Pratt, J., citing Smith).)
9
Given that respondent city officials have complied with our interim order to
cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and that the constitutionality of the
existing marriage statutes is presently under review, I consider the majority’s
determination to speculate about the limits of a state official’s duty to obey the
federal Constitution unnecessary and regrettable. A court should not trifle with
the doctrine invoked by recalcitrant state officials, in the years following Brown v.
Board of Education, supra, 347 U.S. 483, to rationalize their delay in complying
with the Fourteenth Amendment. The high court definitively repudiated this
erroneous doctrine in Cooper v. Aaron, supra, 358 U.S. 1, 18: “No state legislator
or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating
his undertaking to support it.” The United States Constitution, itself, immediately
commands the unqualified obedience of state officials in article VI, section 3,
which declares that “all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States
and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution . . . .” (Italics added; see also Cooper v. Aaron, supra, 358 U.S. at
pp. 19-20.)
We, as a court, should not claim more power than we need to do our job
effectively. In particular, strong claims of judicial power over the executive
branch are best left unmade and, if they must be made, are best reserved for cases
presenting a real threat to the separation of powers—a threat that provides
manifest necessity for the claim, a genuine test of the claim’s validity, and a
suitable incentive for caution in its articulation. None of these conditions, all of
which are necessary to ensure sound decisions in hard cases, is present here.
III.
In conclusion, I agree with the majority’s decision to order city officials not
to license additional same-sex marriages pending resolution of the constitutional
10
challenges to the existing marriage statutes. To say more at this time is neither
necessary nor wise.
WERDEGAR, J.
11
See last page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding XXX
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S122923 & S122865
Date Filed: August 12, 2004
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court:
County:
Judge:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Andrea Lynn Hoch, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Louis R. Mauro,
Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. Lynch, Zackery Morazzini, Hiren Patel, Timothy M. Muscat,
Douglas J. Woods and Christopher E. Krueger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner Bill Lockyer, as
Attorney General of the State of California.
Alliance Defense Fund, Benjamin W. Bull, Jordan W. Lorence, Gary S. McCaleb, Glen Lavy, Robert H.
Taylor; Center for Marriage Law, Vincent P. McCarthy; Law Offices of Terry L. Thompson and Terry L.
Thompson for Petitioners Barbara Lewis, Charles McIlhenny and Edward Mei.
Liberty Counsel, Mathew D. Staver, Rena M. Lindevaldsen; and Ross S. Heckmann for Randy Thomasson
and Campaign for California Families as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Bill Lockyer, as Attorney
General of the State of California.
Divine Queen Mariette Do-Nguyen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Bill Lockyer, as Attorney
General of the State of California.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Ellen Forman, Wayne
K. Snodgrass, Thomas S. Lakritz, K. Scott Dickey, Kathleen S. Morris and Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, Deputy
City Attorneys; Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Bobbie J. Wilson, Pamela K. Fulmer,
Amy E. Margolin, Sarah M. King, Kevin H. Lewis, Ceide Zapparoni, Glenn M. Levy and Chandra Miller
Fienen for Respondents.
Alma Marie Triche-Winston and Charel Winston as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
1
Page 2 - counsel continued - S122923 & S122865
Attorney for Respondent:
Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy and Waukeen Q. McCoy for Dr. Anthony Bernan, Andrew
Neugebauer, Stephanie O’Brien, Janet Levy, Dr. Gregory Clinton, Gregory Morris, Joseph Falkner, Arthur
Healey, Kristin Anderson, Michele Betegga, Derrick Anderson and Wayne Edfors II as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Respondents.
Morrison & Foerster, Ruth N. Borenstein, Stuart C. Plunkett and Johnathan E. Mansfield for Marriage
Equality California, Inc., and Twelve Married Same-Sex Couples as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Respondents.
Ann Miller Ravel, County Counsel (Santa Clara) and Martin H. Dodd, Assistant County Counsel, as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
Dana McRae, County Counsel (Santa Cruz), Shannon M. Sullivan and Jason M. Heath, Assistant County
Counsel, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
Bingham McCutchen, John R. Reese, Matthew S. Gray, Susan Baker Manning, Huong T. Nguyen and
Danielle Merida for Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Respondents.
National Center for Lesbian Rights, Shannon Minter, Courtney Joslin; Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe,
Stephen V. Bomse, Richard DeNatale, Hilary E. Ware; ACLU of Southern California, Martha A.
Matthews; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Jon W. Davidson, Jennifer C. Pizer; Steefel, Levitt
& Weiss, Dena L. Narbaitz, Clyde J. Wadsworth; ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Tamara
Lange, Alan I. Schlosser; Law Office of David C. Codell, David C. Codell and Aimee Dudovitz for Del
Martin and Phyllis Lyon, Sarah Conner and Gillian Smith, Margot McShane and Alexandra D’Amario,
Dave Scott Chandler and Jeffrey Wayne Chandler, Theresa Michelle Petry and Cristal Rivera-Mitchel,
Lancy Woo and Cristy Chung, Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, Jewell Gomez and Diane Sabin, Myra Beals
and Ida Matson, Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker, Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper, Our
Family Coalition and Equality California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
Roger Jon Diamond as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
Law Offices of Peter D. Leposcopo and Peter D. Leposcopo for California Senators William J. (“Pete”)
Knight, Dennis Hollingsworth, Rico Oller, Bill Morrow, Thomas McClintock, Dick Ackerman, Samuel
Aanestad, Bob Margett, Ross Johnson, Jim F. Battin, Jr., California Assembly Members Ray Haynes,
George A. Plescia, Tony Strickland, Bill Maze, Robert Pacheco, Doug La Malfa, Guy S. Houston, Steven
N. Samuleian, Dave Codgill, Tom Harman, Dave Cox, Patricia C. Bates, Russ Bogh, Kevin McCarthy,
Todd Spitzer, Alan Nakanishi, Keith S. Richman, Shirley Horton, Sharon Runner, Jay La Suer and Pacific
Justice Institute as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
2
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Timothy M. Muscat
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
(916) 445-7385
Jordan W. Lorence
Alliance Defense Fund
15333 North Pima Road, Suite 165
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 444-0020
Therese M. Stewart
Chief Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-4700
3
Opinion Information
| Date: | Docket Number: |
| Thu, 08/12/2004 | S122923 |
Parties
| 1 | Lockyer, Bill (Petitioner) Represented by Christopher Edward Krueger Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street, Room 125 Sacramento, CA |
| 2 | Lockyer, Bill (Petitioner) Represented by Timothy M. Muscat Ofc Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA |
| 3 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Therese Marie Stewart Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 4 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Kevin Scott Dickey Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 5 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Dennis Jose Herrera City Attorney, City & County of San Francisco 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 6 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Kathleen Suzanne Morris Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 7 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Ellen Forman Obstler Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 8 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Wayne Kessler Snodgrass Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 9 | City & County Of San Francisco (Respondent) Represented by Bobbie Jean Wilson Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin 3 Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 10 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Dennis Jose Herrera City Attorney, City & County of San Francisco 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 11 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Pamela K Fulmer Howard Rice et al. 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA |
| 12 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Sherri Sokeland Kaiser Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 13 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Sarah Marie King Howard Rice et al. 3 Embarcdero Center San Francisco, CA |
| 14 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Amy Elizabeth Margolin Howard Rice et al. 3 Embarcardero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 15 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Wayne Kessler Snodgrass Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 16 | Newsom, Gavin (Respondent) Represented by Therese Marie Stewart Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 17 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Wayne Kessler Snodgrass Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 18 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Kevin Scott Dickey Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 19 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Pamela K Fulmer Howard Rice et al. 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA |
| 20 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Sherri Sokeland Kaiser Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 21 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Amy Elizabeth Margolin Howard Rice et al 3 Embarcardero Ctr 7FL San Francisco, CA |
| 22 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Kathleen Suzanne Morris Howard Rice et al 3 Embarcadero Ctr 7FL San Francisco, CA |
| 23 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Ellen Forman Obstler Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 24 | Alfaro, Nancy (Respondent) Represented by Therese Marie Stewart Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 25 | Teng, Mabel S. (Respondent) Represented by Therese Marie Stewart Office of the City Attorney 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #234 San Francisco, CA |
| 26 | Teng, Mabel S. (Respondent) Represented by Bobbie Jean Wilson Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin 3 Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 27 | Thomasson, Randy (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ross S. Heckmann Attorney at Law 1214 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA |
| 28 | Thomasson, Randy (Amicus curiae) Represented by Rena M. Lindevaldsen Liberty Counsel 210 East Palmetto Avenue Longwood, FL |
| 29 | Thomasson, Randy (Amicus curiae) Represented by Mathew D. Staver Liberty Counsel 210 E. Palmetto Avenue Longwood, FL |
| 30 | Campaign For California Families (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ross S. Heckmann Attorney at Law 1214 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA |
| 31 | Campaign For California Families (Amicus curiae) Represented by Rena M. Lindevaldsen Liberty Counsel 210 East Palmetto Avenue Longwood, FL |
| 32 | Campaign For California Families (Amicus curiae) Represented by Mathew D. Staver Liberty Counsel 210 E. Palmetto Avenue Longwood, FL |
| 33 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Stephen V. Bomse Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA |
| 34 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by David Charles Codell Attorney at Law 9200 Sunset Blvd. Penthouse Two Los Angeles, CA |
| 35 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Jon Warren Davidson Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA |
| 36 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Richard Joseph Denatale Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA |
| 37 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Aimee Elizabeth Dudovitz Law Office of David C. Cordell 9200 Sunset Boulevard, Penthouse 2 Los Angeles, CA |
| 38 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Courtney Grant Joslin National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street, Suite 570 San Francisco, CA |
| 39 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Tamara Alice Lange ACLU/LGRP & AIDS Projects 125 Broad St 18FL New York, NY |
| 40 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Martha Alys Matthews ACLU Southern California 1616 Beverly Blvd Los Angeles, CA |
| 41 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Shannon Minter National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St #570 San Francisco, CA |
| 42 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Dena Leeann Narbaitz Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Ctr 30FL San Francisco, CA |
| 43 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Jennifer Carol Pizer Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund 3325 Wilshire Blvd #1300 Los Angeles, CA |
| 44 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Alan L. Schlosser American Civil Liberties Union 1663 Mission St.,4Th Fl San Francisco, CA |
| 45 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Clyde J. Wadsworth Heller Ehrman White et al. 333 Bush St San Francisco, CA |
| 46 | Martin, Del (Amicus curiae) Represented by Hilary Elizabeth Ware Heller Ehrman White et al. 333 Bush St San Francisco, CA |
| 47 | Bernan, Anthony (Amicus curiae) Represented by Waukeen Q. Mccoy Law Office of Waukeen Q. McCoy 703 Market Street, Suite 1407 San Francisco, CA |
| 48 | Triche-Winston, Alma Marie (Amicus curiae) P. O. Box 4767 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 |
| 49 | Diamond, Roger Jon (Amicus curiae) Represented by Roger Jon Diamond Attorney at Law 2115 Main Street Santa Monica, CA |
| 50 | Do-Nguyen, Divine Queen Mariette (Amicus curiae) Rebuild My Church Divine Mission 9450 Mira Mesa Blvd., Ste. B-417 San Diego, CA 92126 |
| 51 | County Of Santa Clara (Amicus curiae) Represented by Martin H. Dodd Office of the County Counsel - Santa Clara County 70 W. Hedding, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA |
| 52 | County Of Santa Clara (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ann Miller Ravel Office of the County Counsel - Santa Clara County 70 W. Hedding, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA |
| 53 | Bay Area Lawyers For Individual Freedom (Amicus curiae) Represented by Matthew Scott Gray Bingham McCutchen, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 54 | Bay Area Lawyers For Individual Freedom (Amicus curiae) Represented by Susan Baker Manning Bingham McCutchen, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 55 | Bay Area Lawyers For Individual Freedom (Amicus curiae) Represented by Danielle Renee Merida Bingham McCutchen, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 56 | Bay Area Lawyers For Individual Freedom (Amicus curiae) Represented by Huong Thien Nguyen Bingham McCutchen, LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA |
| 57 | Bay Area Lawyers For Individual Freedom (Amicus curiae) Represented by John R. Reese Bingham McCutchen, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 58 | Marriage Equality California, Inc. & 12 Married Same-Sex Cou (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ruth Nathania Borenstein Morrison & Foerster, LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA |
| 59 | Marriage Equality California, Inc. & 12 Married Same-Sex Cou (Amicus curiae) Represented by Johnathan Edward Mansfield Morrison & Foerster, LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA |
| 60 | Marriage Equality California, Inc. & 12 Married Same-Sex Cou (Amicus curiae) Represented by Stuart Christophe Plunkett Morrison & Foerster, LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA |
| 61 | Winston, Charel (Amicus curiae) P. O. Box 4767 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 |
| Disposition | |
| Aug 12 2004 | Opinion: Writ of Mandate issued |
| Dockets | |
| Feb 27 2004 | Petition for mandate/prohibition & stay filed (civil) by the Attorney General. |
| Feb 27 2004 | Retained for consideration (mandate/prohibition & stay) |
| Feb 27 2004 | Order filed Respondents is directed to file an opposition to the petition, addressing both the request for an immediate cease and desist order or stay and the merits of the petition, on or before Friday, March 5 2004, at the San Francisco office of the California Supreme Court. |
| Mar 1 2004 | Motion for leave to intervene filed Motion for Leave to Intervene and Request for Expedited Consideration; Memorandum of Points and Authiorities in Support; Declarations of Intervenor-Respondents Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, Sarah Conner and Gilian Smith, Margot McShane and Alexandra D'Amario, Dave Scott Chandler and Jeffrey Wayne Chandler, Teresa Michelle Petry, Cristal Rivera-Mitchel, and Equality Cailfornia, in support of Motion to Intervene |
| Mar 1 2004 | Motion for leave to intervene filed by Randy Thomasson and Campaign For California Families to Intervene as Party-Petitioners. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion |
| Mar 1 2004 | Filed: Application for Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Intervene [by counsel for Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families, the Proposed Intervenors] |
| Mar 1 2004 | Filed: Complaint in Intervention of Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families |
| Mar 1 2004 | Filed: Motion by Out-of State Counsel, Matthew D. Staver, to Associate in Particular Case. [Pro Hac Vice Application, as attorney for Proposed Intervenor Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families] |
| Mar 1 2004 | Filed: Motion by Out-of-State Counsel, Rena M. Lindevaldsen, to Associate in Particular Case. [ Pro Hac Vice Application ] |
| Mar 1 2004 | Filed: Memorandum of Law in Support of Writ Relief Requested by Petitioner |
| Mar 1 2004 | Filed: Request for Judicial Notice in support of Motion by Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families to Intervene |
| Mar 3 2004 | Received: Letter from Heller, Ehrman dated 3/2/2004 , as co-counsel representing several proposed intervenors |
| Mar 5 2004 | Received: |
| Mar 5 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief and brief by counsel for Jennie Schact and Sue Burish in support of respondents. |
| Mar 5 2004 | Opposition filed by the City Attorney for Respondents City & County of San rancisco, Gavin Newsom and Nancy Alfaro |
| Mar 5 2004 | Filed: Respondents' Request for Judicial Notice |
| Mar 5 2004 | Exhibit(s) lodged Respondents' Appendix (Vols. I and II) |
| Mar 5 2004 | Exhibit(s) lodged Respondents' Appendix of Non-California Authorities (Vols I, II, and III) |
| Mar 5 2004 | Motion for leave to intervene filed Motion for leave to intervene by Anthony Bernan, Andrew Neugebauer, Stephanie O'Brien, Janet Levy et al. |
| Mar 5 2004 | Received: Proposed intervenors' (Bernan et al) memo of points and authorities in opposition to petition. |
| Mar 11 2004 | Order to show cause issued Respondents are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is called at the late May 2004 or June 2004 calendar, why a writ of mandate should not issue, directing respondents to apply and abide by the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that these statutory provisions are unconstitutional. Pending this court's determination of this matter or further order of this court, respondents are directed to enforce and apply the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 without regard to respondents' personal view of the constitutionality of such provisions, and to refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized by such provisions. In addition, pending this court's determination of this matter or further order of this court, all proceedings in Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco et al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CPF-04-503943) and Thomasson et al. v. Newsom et al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-428794) are stayed. This stay does not preclude the filing of a separate action in superior court raising a substantive constitutional challenge to the current marriage statutes. The return in this matter, limited to the legal question whether respondents are exceeding or acting outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that such provisions are unconstitutional, is to be filed by respondents in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, March 18, 2004. In addressing the foregoing issue, the return should discuss not only the applicability and effect of article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution, but any other constitutional or statutory provision or doctrine that may be relevant to the resolution of the foregoing issue. A reply may be filed by petitioners in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, March 25, 2004. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, March 25, 2004. Any reply to an amicus curiae brief may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Brown and Moreno, JJ. |
| Mar 12 2004 | Motion for leave to intervene denied The motion for leave to intervene, filed by Del Martin et al. on March 1, 2004, is denied without prejudice to filing an application to appear as amicus curiae pursuant to the procedure set forth in the order filed in this matter on March 11, 2004. The motion for leave to intervene, filed by Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families on March 2, 2004, is denied without prejudice to filing an application to appear as amicus curiae pursuant to the procedure set forth in the order filed in this matter on March 11, 2004. The motion for leave to intervene, filed by Anthony Bernan et al. on March 5, 2004, is denied without prejudice to filing an application to appear as amicus curiae pursuant to the procedure set forth in the order filed in this matter on March 11, 2004. |
| Mar 16 2004 | Request for Extended Media coverage Filed The California Channel |
| Mar 18 2004 | Request for Extended Media coverage Granted to the California Channel. |
| Mar 18 2004 | Written return filed by Respondents City and County of S.F., Gaven Newsom, Mabel Teng, and Nancy Alfaro. [ 7 pages (w/cover); 9 pages w/proof of service (2 pages) ] |
| Mar 18 2004 | Supplemental brief filed (Opposition) by Respondents to Application for an Immediate Stay and a Peremptory Writ of Mandate in the First Instance. |
| Mar 19 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief and brief by Alma Marie Triche-Winston and Charel Winston in support of respondents. |
| Mar 22 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Of Roger Jon Diamond challenging Constitutionality of Article III, Section 3.5 of the California Constitution. |
| Mar 23 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Alma Marie Triche-Winston and Charel Winston for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 23 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed by Alma Marie Triche-Winston and Charel Winston in support of respondents. |
| Mar 24 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief and brief of Divine Queen Mariette Do-Nguyen in support of the Attorney General (petitioner) |
| Mar 24 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Roger Jon Diamond for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 24 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed By Roger Jon Diamond. Answer is due on or before March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief by Dr. Anthony Bernan, Andrew Neugebauer, Stephanie O'Brien, Janet Levy, Dr. Gregory Clinton, Gregory Morris, Joseph Falkner, Arthur Healey, Kristin Anderson, Michele Betegga, Derrick Anderson and Wayne Edfors II in support of respondents. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received: |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief and brief by Amici Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families, along with Request for Judicial Notice, and Applications for Pro Hac Vice admission of Mathew D. Staver and Rena M. Lindevaldsen. [Calif. counsel to send gray covers for amici brief.] |
| Mar 25 2004 | Application to file amicus curiae brief denied The application of Jennie Schacht and Sue Burish for leave to file an amicus brief is denied because the issue to which the brief is primarily addressed is not before the court. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted of Divine Queen Mariette Do-Nguyen in support of petitioner. Answer by any party due on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed Divine Queen Mariette Do-Nguyen in support of petitioner. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief and brief of County of Santa Clara in support of respondents. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, Sarah Conner and Gillian Smith, Margot McShane and Alexandra D'Amario, Dave Scott Chandler and Jeffery Wayne Chandler, Theresa Michelle Petry and Cristal Rivera-Mitchel, Lancy Wood and Cristy Chung, Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, Jewell Gomez and Diane Sabin, Myra Beals and Ida Matson, Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker, Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper, Our Family Coalition and Equality California in support of Respondents. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom in support of Respondents. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) By petitioner {Bill Lockyer}. |
| Mar 25 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Marriage Equality California, Inc., and Twelve Married Same-Sex couples in support of Respondents. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted Dr. Anthony Bernan, et al., in support of respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed by Dr.. Anthony Bernan, Andrew Neugebauer, Stephanie O'Brien, Janet Levy, Dr. Gregory Clinton, Gregory Morris, Joseph Falkner, Arthur Healey, Kristin Anderson, Michele Betegga, Derrick Anderson, and Wayne Edford II. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted by Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families in support of petitioner. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families in support of petitioner. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Request for judicial notice filed (granted case) by Amici Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families |
| Mar 26 2004 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted The applications of Mathew D. Staver and Rena M. Lindevaldsen of the State of Florida for admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Amici Curiae Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 983.) |
| Mar 26 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted County of Santa Clara in support of respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed County of Santa Clara in support of respondents |
| Mar 26 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom in support of respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom in support of respondents. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted Marriage Equality California, Inc. and Twelve Married Same-Sex Couples in support of respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before Monday, March 29, 2004. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed by Marriage Equality California, Inc. and Twelve Married Same Sex Couples in support of respondents. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, et al. in support of respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before Monday, March 29, 2004.. |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, Sarah Conner and Gillian Smith, Margot McShane and Alexandra D'Amario, Dave Scott Chandler and Jeffery Wayne Chandler, Theresa Michelle Perry and Cristal Rivera-Mitchel, Lancy Woo and Cristy Chung, Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, Jewell Gomez and Diana Sabin, Myra Beals and Ida Matson, Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker, Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper, Our Family Coalition and Equality California in support of respondents. |
| Mar 29 2004 | Received: Respondents' Notice of Errata to Request for Judicial Notice filed on March 5, 2004. |
| Mar 29 2004 | Response to amicus curiae brief filed By Respondents to AC Brief filed Randy Thomasson et al.,. |
| Apr 12 2004 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief applicant, Darin M. Gray - app & brief separate faxed to sf. |
| Apr 14 2004 | Supplemental briefing ordered The court requests the parties to file supplemental briefs directed to the following questions: In addition to determining whether respondents exceeded or acted outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that such provisions are unconstitutional, may and should the court determine in this proceeding the validity of same-sex marriages that already have been performed and registered by respondents? If the court were to determine that respondents exceeded their authority in issuing marriage licenses to, and registering marriage certificates submitted on behalf of, same-sex couples, would the marriages that have been performed and registered nonetheless be valid, would the marriages be voidable, or would the marriages be void? If the court were to determine that the same-sex marriages that already have been performed and registered are not valid, should the court order the city to refund fees collected from applicants for such marriages, as requested by the Attorney General's petition? The court has already received briefing on these questions by amici curiae, but because the parties have not specifically addressed these questions in their briefs, the court is providing the parties an opportunity to do so. The parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental letter briefs on these questions in the San Francisco office of the Supreme Court on or before Wednesday, April 21, 2004. Simultaneous reply briefs may be filed in the San Francisco office of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, April 26, 2004. |
| Apr 21 2004 | Supplemental brief filed by counsel for Amici Curiae Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, et al. |
| Apr 21 2004 | Supplemental brief filed by Petitioner Lockyer as the State Attorney General |
| Apr 21 2004 | Supplemental brief filed By Respondents. |
| Apr 26 2004 | Supplemental brief filed (Reply) by petitioner to respondents' supplemental brief. |
| Apr 26 2004 | Supplemental brief filed (REPLY) by respondents to petitioner's Supplemental brief. |
| Apr 27 2004 | Received: Respondents' {City and County fo San Francisco et al.,} amended proof of service. |
| Apr 28 2004 | Case ordered on calendar Tuesday May 25, 2004 at 9:00 AM. in (San Francisco Session). |
| Apr 30 2004 | Order filed (re S122923 & S122865) Oral argument will be held in the above cases on Tuesday, May 25, 2004, beginning at 9am. Because the two cases present similiar issues, the court has determined that they should be argued together and that oral argument should proceed as follows: (1) Argument by petitioner in "Lockyer," not to exceed 30 min, less any time reserved for rebuttal; (2) Argument by petitioner in "Lewis," not to exceed 30 min, less any time reserved for rebuttal; (3) Argument by respondents in "Lockyer" and "Lewis" (all represented by the San Francisco City Attorney), not to exceed 60 min; (4) Rebuttal, if any, by petitioner in "Lockyer;" (5) Rebuttal, if any, by petitioner in "Lewis." Time sheets identifying counsel who will appear for each party must be submitted to the court on or before Friday, May 7, 2004. |
| May 3 2004 | Request for judicial notice granted Respondents' request for judicial notice, filed on March 5, 2004, is granted. Request for judicial notice by amicus curiae Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families, filed on March 26, 2004, is granted. |
| May 5 2004 | Application to file amicus curiae brief denied The application of Darin M. Gray for permission to file an amicus cauriae brief is hereby denied. |
| May 17 2004 | Received: Letter from respondents re cites |
| May 17 2004 | Received: Respondents' Supplemental Appendix of Non-California Authorities |
| May 20 2004 | Received: Letter from petitioner (Attorney General ) dated 5-19-2004 |
| May 20 2004 | Received: letter from respondents (City and County of San Francisco et al.,} dated May 20, 2004 in response to letter from petitioner. |
| May 20 2004 | Order filed The Attorney General's request filed on May 19, 2004, to file a supplemental letter brief after oral argument addressing the supplemental submission from respondents filed on May 17, 2004, is denied without prejudice to the Attorney General's renewal of the request after oral argument, should the Attorney General conclude at that time that a supplemental response is necessary. |
| May 25 2004 | Cause argued and submitted |
| May 25 2004 | Case consolidated with: Lewis v. Alfaro (S122865). |
| Jun 2 2004 | Received: letter from AC parties dated June 2, 2004 re statutory provision relevant to a question raised during oral argument. [S122865] |
| Jun 9 2004 | Motion filed (non-AA) Petitioners' {Barbara Lewis et al.,} to Lift the Stay of Superior Court Proceedings. [S122865] |
| Jun 14 2004 | Received: Petitioners' {Barbara Lewis et al.,} amended proof of service. [S122865]. |
| Jun 14 2004 | Opposition filed By respondent {Nancy Alfaro} to motion to lift stay. [S122865] |
| Jun 21 2004 | Filed: Petitioners' Amended Motion to Lift the Stay of Superior Court Proceedings". (S122865) |
| Jun 21 2004 | Received: Petitioners' letter in response from AC parties dated June 2, 2004. (S122865) |
| Jun 30 2004 | Motion denied The Motion to Lift the Stay of Superior Court Proceedings filed by petitioners in Lewis v. Alfaro on June 9, 2004, and the Amended Motion to Lift the Stay of Superior Court Proceedings filed by petitioners in Lewis v. Alfaro on June 21, 2004, are denied. |
| Aug 12 2004 | Opinion filed: Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue Opinion by George, C.J. -- joined by Baxter, Chin, Brown, Moreno, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Moreno, J. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Kennard, J. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Werdegar, J. |
| Sep 13 2004 | Motion filed (non-AA) By counsel for AC {Randy Thomasson and Campaign for California Families} to clarify lifting of the stay or to lift stay of superior court proceedings. |
| Sep 15 2004 | Order filed In response to the request for clarification of the status of this court's stay of all proceedings in Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco et al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CPF-04-503943) and Thomasson et al. v. Newsom et al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-428794) "pending this court's determination of this matter," issued on March 11, 2004, we observe that the stay of the two named superior court actions terminated on September 13, 2004, upon the finality of this court's decision in Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055. |
| Sep 15 2004 | Remittitur issued (civil case) |
| Oct 20 2004 | Filed: Stipulation setting briefing schedule for motion for attorneys' fees. |
| Oct 26 2004 | Order filed Pursuant to the parties stipulation setting briefing schedule for motion for attorneys' fees signed on October 20, 2004, the following briefing schedule is hereby ordered: Petitioner's opening brief, with time bills, along with Memorandum of costs must be filed on or before October 29, 2004. Respondents' opposition must be served and filed on or before December 10, 2004. Petitioners's may file a reply on or before January 10, 2005. |
| Oct 29 2004 | Motion filed (non-AA) By counsel for petitioners for Attorneys Fees w/ Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Memorandum of Costs and supporting declarations. |
| Dec 10 2004 | Opposition filed by respondents' to petitioners' motion for attorneys fees. |
| Dec 10 2004 | Request for judicial notice filed (granted case) By Respondents' in support of Opposition to petitioners' Motion for Attorneys Fees. |
| Dec 10 2004 | Filed: Respondents' Objection to evidence attached to petitioner's motion for attorneys fees. |
| Dec 10 2004 | Filed: Dclaration of Therese M. Stewart in soppurt of respondents' opposition to petitioners' motion for attorneys fees. |
| Dec 10 2004 | Received: declaration of Gary Greenfield in support of Respondents' opposition to petitioners' motion for attorneys fees. |
| Dec 10 2004 | Received: respondents' appendix of Non-California Authorities. |
| Jan 3 2005 | Received: Errata to resps' opposition brief to petnrs' motion for attorneys fees |
| Feb 16 2005 | Fee request denied The motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 filed by petitioners in Lewis v. Alfaro is denied. |
| Mar 7 2005 | Order filed The opinion in the above entitled matter directed that petitioners shall recover their costs. (Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1120.) Petitioners in Lewis v. Alfaro filed a timely memorandum of costs totalling $1,346.51, and no motion to strike or tax such costs has been filed. Accordingly, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 56(l)(4), 27(d), and 870(b)(4), the clerk is directed to enter the foregoing costs on the judgment forthwith. |
| Briefs | |
| Mar 18 2004 | Written return filed |
| Mar 23 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 24 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 25 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 25 2004 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 26 2004 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Mar 29 2004 | Response to amicus curiae brief filed |
