570 U.S. 693 (2013)
Hollingsworth v. Perry is a landmark Supreme Court case dealing with the concept of legal standing, particularly as it pertains to the defense of state laws.
Do private parties who champion a voter-approved state law possess Article III standing to appeal a federal court decision when state officials decline to do so?
In order to establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a litigant must demonstrate they have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, is fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the district court's decision finding the proposition unconstitutional, as they could not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury.
The significance of Hollingsworth v. Perry lies in its clarification of the Article III standing doctrine, highlighting the judicial limitation on who can litigate in federal court to enforce or defend state laws. This case exemplifies how procedural questions of standing can have substantive impacts on key social issues, like same-sex marriage, without directly addressing their constitutional merits. The dismissal ultimately paved the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California, marking a critical milestone in the evolving legal landscape for marriage equality.