In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Proposition 8, a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008 that banned same-sex marriage. The district court had declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but the officials who would normally appeal such a decision declined to do so. Instead, proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend it. However, the Supreme Court held that these individuals did not have standing - or legal right - to appeal the lower court's decision because they were not directly harmed by its ruling. As such, they could not demonstrate an injury-in-fact necessary for Article III standing under federal law which requires plaintiffs to show personal harm beyond general interest in proper application of Constitution and laws.The result was effectively allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California since there was no valid challenge against the district court's declaration that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

The dissenting opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry argued that the majority had erred by not recognizing the standing of petitioners, who were private parties seeking to defend California's Proposition 8 after state officials refused to do so. The dissent contended that this decision undermined democratic processes and disrespected the rights of citizens to engage in political debate and litigation over contentious issues like same-sex marriage. It also criticized the majority for failing to address whether or not Proposition 8 was constitutional, arguing that this lack of resolution left a significant legal question unanswered. Furthermore, it suggested that denying standing could have far-reaching implications for other cases where elected officials decline to defend laws they disagree with politically.