Perry v. Brown
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued December 6, 2010 and December 8, 2011 Decided February 7, 2012
Full case name	Kristin M. Perry, et al. v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, etc.
Prior history	Judgment for plaintiffs, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal., 2010); Stay of ruling denied, 702 F.Supp.2d 1132 (N. D. Cal., 2010); reversed, 2010 WL 3212786 (9th Cir., 2010); Judgement affirmed (9th Cir., February 7, 2012) Appeal by Imperial County dismissed, 630 F.3d 898 (9th Cir., 2011); Motion to vacate judgment denied, 790 F.Supp.2d 1119 (N.D. Cal., 2011); affirmed, Case No. 10-16696 (9th Cir., February 7, 2012);[1] Certified question, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th. Cir.); Answered 52 Cal.4th 1116 (2011)
Holding
The judgment of the District Court in overturning Proposition 8 as unconstitutional is affirmed. Judge Walker was not required to recuse himself because of his long-term same-sex relationship. The official sponsors of Proposition 8 are entitled to appeal the District Court's decision in lieu of the State.
Panel membership
Stephen Reinhardt Michael Hawkins N. Randy Smith
Case opinions
Majority by	Reinhardt
Joined by	Hawkins
Concurrence/dissent by	Smith
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Cal. Cons. Code Art. I § 7.5

Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger) is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 7, 2012. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reviewed and affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, was unconstitutional.

On August 4, 2010, Chief District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, though the judgment was stayed pending appeal.^[2] On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court and ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.^[3] The stay continues to be in effect.

The case is widely regarded as a landmark case that will likely reach the Supreme Court on appeal.^[4][5][6] The plaintiffs' attorneys, Theodore Olson and David Boies, were listed on the 2010 Time 100 for their nonpartisan and strong legal approach to challenging Proposition 8.^[7]

Background[link]

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held in the case In re Marriage Cases that state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex applicants violated the California Constitution. The following month, same-sex couples were able to marry in California. In November 2008, California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage.^[8] Following the adoption of Proposition 8, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the validity of the amendment under various state constitutional provisions. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court held, in Strauss v. Horton, that Proposition 8 was a lawful enactment, but that same-sex marriages contracted before its passage remained valid.^[9]

Three days before the Strauss decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples.^[10][11][12] The couples' attorneys included Theodore Boutrous and the two attorneys who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore case, David Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson.^[13]

Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who originally obtained the right to same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton, opposed the filing because they felt a federal challenge at this time might do more harm than good.^[11] Olson and AFER rebuffed this claim and defended the timing of the lawsuit.^[14]

Following a pre-trial hearing on July 2, 2009, the three legal groups moved to intervene in the lawsuit, as did the City of San Francisco in a separate filing. The plaintiffs opposed allowing the groups or the City to intervene.^[6] On August 19, Judge Vaughn R. Walker denied the legal groups' motions to intervene but granted the City's, albeit in a limited capacity.^[15] Despite the other groups' failed attempt to intervene in the lawsuit, they offered support to the legal team litigating the case, with James Esseks of the ACLU saying: "[w]e are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible".^[10]

Parties[link]

Plaintiffs[link]

In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. For the same reason, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license.^[12] The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health.^[12][16]

Several groups sought to intervene as plaintiffs, including the groups who had prosecuted the In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton actions.^[17] San Francisco also filed a motion to intervene in the case. The City cited its work in the earlier cases that had provided "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination". City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that his office is "singularly well-prepared" to help "put anti-gay discrimination on trial based on the facts".^[18] Walker permitted only San Francisco to intervene, as it could speak to the impact of Proposition 8 on local governments.^[19] He also ordered the attorney general to assist San Francisco in analyzing Proposition 8's impact. Walker stated that necessary speed and swiftness "on an issue of this magnitude and importance" were required and that the intervention of additional groups would only complicate and stall the case.^[20]

Defendants[link]

Attorney General Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.^[10][22] Governor Schwarzenegger also declined to participate in the defense but said it was appropriate for the courts to hear the case and "resolve the merits of this action expeditiously" because it "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination."^[23] On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected governor and Kamala Harris was elected attorney general. Both ran on platforms promising not to defend the proposition,^[24] so despite the change of administration, the state continued to decline defending Proposition 8 in court.

Two groups, the official proponents of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage.com, led by Dennis Hollingsworth, and a rival group, the Campaign for California Families, sought to intervene as defendants. The court allowed the official proponents to intervene, filling the void left by the state officials' acquiescence. The judge denied the request from the Campaign for California Families.^[16][19]

On December 15, Imperial County filed a motion to intervene as a defendant despite the fact that the intervenor deadline had passed.^[25] They argued that the civil agencies named in the suit, the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles and the state government, were not actively defending the Proposition. They continued to argue that the case needed a proper governmental defendant.^[26] On August 4, along with the ruling, Walker denied Imperial County intervenor status.^[27]

Pre-trial motions[link]

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have immediately restored same-sex marriage in California until the lawsuit was decided.^[28] Walker deferred a ruling on the motion and said he would instead "proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits".^[29]

Plaintiffs requested that the campaign produce internal documents that relate to the purpose and intent of the amendment and the development of political messages during the campaign. The Proposition 8 proponents objected to the request because of the potential chilling effect on political speech, among other grounds.^[30] On October 1, Walker rejected the contention that the First Amendment shielded all of those communications.^[31] The proponents appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and separately moved to stay the proceedings in the district court. Noting that the proponents were unlikely to succeed in this appeal, Walker rejected the stay request on October 23.^[32] Regardless, the proponents continued to assert a First Amendment privilege over these documents, a sampling of which Walker reviewed privately.^[33] On December 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit overturned Walker's ruling, saying that the release of the documents "would likely have a chilling effect on political association and the formulation of political expression."^[34][35]

In September, Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion for summary judgment. Running more than 100 pages, the motion asked the court to rule that Proposition 8 did not offend the U.S. Constitution without the need to find facts at a trial. The motion asserted that Baker v. Nelson foreclosed any further review by the court. Failing that, the motion argued that all of the couples' claims failed as a matter of law.^[36] After a two-hour hearing on October 13, Walker denied the motion. He noted that the Supreme Court doctrine on sexual orientation and gender discrimination had changed since 1972. Resolving the amendment's validity, Walker noted, required hearing testimony at trial.^[37]

Broadcast and online coverage[link]

Perry would have been the first federal trial to be filmed and be shown live at public courthouses in San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle, Portland, and Brooklyn, through an experimental new system developed by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court.^[38][39] The trial would have also been shown on the video-sharing website YouTube.^[38] Walker noted that he had received 138,574 comments on the plans to broadcast the trial, and all but 32 were in favor.^[40]

Two days before the trial, the defendant-intervenors filed emergency papers with the Supreme Court to bar telecasting the trial, with the court ruling 8–1 to temporarily stay live streaming until Wednesday.^[41] Although a coalition of media organizations, including CNN, Fox News, the Associated Press, and Court TV, filed an emergency amicus brief in support of live streaming and delayed broadcast,^[42] the court ruled 5–4 along ideological lines in Hollingsworth v. Perry to indefinitely block live streams to various federal courthouses, although it refused to rule on plans to delay broadcasts on YouTube.^[43][44][45]

Despite the ruling, the proceedings elicited unprecedented live coverage through social networking site Twitter from gay-interest magazine The Advocate,^[46] the National Center for Lesbian Rights,^[47] an official feed from the group representing the plaintiffs (AFER),^[48] a California-based progressive organization Courage Campaign,^[49] and several independent parties including Chris Geidner, maintainer of the LGBT-oriented Law Dork blog,^[50] San Francisco-based attorney Chris Stoll,^[51] and others.

Filmmakers John Ireland and John Ainsworth filmed and distributed a re-enactment of the trial.^[52] Actors participating in the project include Adrienne Barbeau, Arye Gross and Tess Harper.^[53]

Trial[link]

In scheduling a trial for January 11, 2010, to gather facts about the case, Walker largely surprised both the plaintiffs and defendants.^[10][15][54] The trial was intended to address issues such as how having same-sex parents affects children, whether same-sex marriages undermine opposite-sex marriages,^[5] the history of discrimination against gays, and the effects of prejudice against gays.^[55] Notable trial witnesses included historian George Chauncey, psychologist Gregory M. Herek, and philosopher Daniel N. Robinson.^[55]

The trial began with opening statements by Theodore Olson and San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart for the plaintiffs.^[56] The plaintiffs sought to show that marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry hurts them and their children; and that there was no reason or societal benefit in prohibiting them from getting married.^[57] Charles Cooper made an opening statement for the defendants, saying that marriage had been universally limited to opposite-sex couples.^[56] The plaintiffs then testified about their personal experiences as gay Americans and the reasons why they wished to get married.^[56][58]

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez on June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs in Perry cited the decision by Justice Ginsburg as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is "an identifiable class" in opposition to the defense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral".^[59] Christian Legal Society had asserted that it did not restrict membership based on sexual orientation but based on "conduct and belief that the conduct is not wrong".^[60] Ginsburg rejected that distinction, noting that with respect to sexual orientation the court has "declined to distinguish between status and conduct" and offering an analogy from an earlier opinion: "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."^[61]

History of marriage[link]

The plaintiffs called expert witness Nancy Cott, an American history scholar, who testified that "marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage".^[56] The next day, she continued her testimony, which revolved around three key points: how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities", which she said strengthens marriage.^[62] She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means".^[63] Cott was then cross-examined by David Thompson, who asked about her personal feelings to establish that she was an advocate rather than a dispassionate scholar.^[64]

Defense counsel argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for procreation and child rearing.^[65][66]

Discrimination[link]

Professor George Chauncey of Yale University, a social historian who specializes in LGBT history,^[62] described how previous government campaigns had attempted "to demonize gay people as dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters".^[62] He then analyzed campaign material from the Yes on 8 campaign to show how they played upon the same message.^[62] He analyzed the words of Dr. Hak-Shing William ("Bill") Tam,^[67] which included assertions that, were California to fail to pass Proposition 8, other states would follow and "fall into Satan's hands", and that following legalization of same-sex marriage, the advocates of the "gay agenda" would attempt to "legalize having sex with children".^[67] Chauncey connected these messages to the earlier history of government demonizing gays and lesbians which he had previously discussed.^[67] Helen Zia, a scholar on Asian American social and political movements who was also asked to analyze those words, explained how her encounters with similar Asian community organizers encouraged her to "[step] into the closet and [slam] the door."^[68] David Thompson for the defense cross-examined Prof. Chauncey by focusing on the progress that had been made for mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians in the last twenty years.^[67] Thompson noted anti-discrimination laws, support for domestic partnerships, and the proliferation of media like the sitcom Will & Grace and 2005 film Brokeback Mountain.^[67] Thompson's line of questioning was intended to establish "whether systemic bias against lesbians and gay men prevents them from being treated by others as equal citizens in the political process".^[67]

Professor Gary Segura, a political scientist at Stanford University, said that no other minority groups in America — including undocumented aliens — have been the target of more restrictive ballot initiatives than gay men and lesbians.^[69] He accused Proposition 8 of being the type of social stigma that makes "gay and lesbian social progress seem like it comes at expense of other people and organizations and it makes the hill steeper".^[70] Under cross-examination, defendant witness David Blankenhorn revealed that he believed the principle of equal human dignity applied to gay and lesbian Americans, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before".^[58]

Gregory Herek, a professor from UC Davis contended that "structural stigma" in the form of laws like Proposition 8 directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and violence against LGBT people. He also testified that there is no evidence "conversion therapy" is effective in changing a person's sexuality, and that it "sends a harmful and false message to young people that homosexuality is a disorder", directly leading to more discrimination. During cross-examination, he asserted that "sexual orientation is a combination of attraction, identity, and behavior, and that the complexities researchers face in defining sexual orientation are no different than those they face in defining other characteristics such as race".^[71]

San Diego Republican mayor Jerry Sanders testified how he transitioned from believing that domestic partnership was an ideal compromise to believing that same-sex marriage was fundamental. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced", he explained.^[72] During cross-examination, he agreed with the defendants that not all people who voted for Proposition 8 were "bigots", but that he believed their vote was "grounded in prejudice".^[73]

Psychological effects[link]

Relationship psychologist Anne Peplau took the stand and argued that individuals gain physical, psychological, and social benefits from being married.^[67] Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco, agreed and said that the citizen's improved health would save city emergency health funds.^[67] Anne Peplau also argued that the quality and stability of same-sex relationships are similar to those of heterosexual relationships and that permitting same-sex couples to marry will not harm the institution of marriage in any way.^[67] Peplau was cross-examined by Nicole Moss, who asked Peplau about the differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but Peplau reiterated there are no significant differences.^[67] The plaintiffs also called forward Dr. Ilan H. Meyer to testify on the mental and psychological harms of being denied the right to marry. "Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners, marriage is a common, socially approved goal," he said. He went on to say that gays and lesbians suffered from "minority stress".^[74]

Examining the impact of same-sex marriage on children, the plaintiffs introduced Michael Lamb, a developmental psychologist at the University of Cambridge. He contended that there is a fairly substantial body of literature since the late 1970s that focuses specifically on the adjustment of children parented by gay men and lesbians which provides very good understanding of the factors that affect the adjustment of children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. This substantial body of evidence documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. He noted that for significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married. He added that a field of developmental psychology came to the conclusion that what makes for an effective parent is the same both for a mother or a father, and that children do not need to have a masculine-behaving parent figure, a father, or feminine-behaving parent figure, a mother, in order to be well adjusted.^[75] Defendant witness David Blankenhorn, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry.^[58]

Economics[link]

In an exploration on the economics of Proposition 8, the plaintiffs called forward Edmund A. Egan, the chief economist for San Francisco. He testified that same-sex marriage would aid the city because "married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than single individuals" and that "married individuals are healthier on average and behave themselves in healthier ways than single individuals", saving the city from paying emergency room bills and insurance funds.^[74] He also testified that San Francisco's revenue would increase if same-sex marriage were legal, citing the period in 2008 when 5,100 marriage licenses were issued.^[76] He estimated that the city of San Francisco was losing out on $37.2 million in retail and hotel spending and $2.5 million in sales and hotel tax revenue each year.^[77]

San Francisco Attorney Therese Stewart noted in the closing arguments that the city itself was uniquely losing out on potential profits because Proposition 8 dissuaded gay tourists and their families from visiting the "cool, gray city of love" (as Walker referred to it) to get married.^[65] She also argued, through testimony by Ryan Kendall and Meyer, that the city was burdened with higher incidents of mental health disorders and the subsequent costs to the public health system.^[65]

Political strength[link]

The defense called up Professor Kenneth P. Miller from Claremont McKenna College to testify that LGBT people had strong political and social support within California. He argued that all the major newspapers, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and a majority of state politicians all strongly opposed Proposition 8.^[78]

During cross-examination of George Chauncey, the defense claimed that LGBT people have enjoyed increased political and social clout, with increased acceptance by society as exemplified by films such as Brokeback Mountain. Chauncey also admitted that employers in California are required to ban discrimination.^[79]

District court opinion[link]

Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.^[81]

On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.^[82] Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:^[83]

An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect.

Findings of Fact[link]

Over 50 pages of the opinion are devoted to Walker's 80 findings of fact^[84] and the supporting evidence. These findings of fact are important because appellate courts generally defer to them. Some of those findings include:

• Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter. (Finding of Fact (FF) No. 19, p. 60)
• How the State defines civil marriage (FF No. 34, p. 67)
• The benefits of civil marriage (to the State and individuals). (FF #35–41, pp. 67–71)
• Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. (FF No. 43, pp. 71–72)
• Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation. (FF No. 46, p. 74)
• The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (FF No. 47, p. 76)
• Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians. (FF No. 51, p. 79)
• Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage. (FF No. 52, p. 80)
• The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from denial of marriage to same-sex couples. (FF #64–68, 77–78)
• A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. (FF No. 70, p. 95)
• Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination. (FF No. 74, p. 96)
• Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (FF No. 77, p. 101)

Substantive due process[link]

Judge Walker characterized the right at issue as "the right to marry", which, he wrote, "has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household", citing Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. He went on to say that "[r]ace and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage".

Before analyzing Proposition 8 under the applicable level of review (strict scrutiny for fundamental rights), Walker noted that California's domestic partnership laws do not satisfy California's obligation to provide gays and lesbians the right to marry for two reasons: (1) domestic partnerships do not provide the same social meaning as marriage; and (2) domestic partnerships were created "specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples."

Judge Walker then found Proposition 8 unconstitutional because it does not pass even a rational-basis review (as he explains in the Equal Protection context), much less strict scrutiny.

Evaluation of expert witnesses[link]

The court found that all nine of the witnesses presented by the plaintiffs as experts "were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified" and "offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified."^[83] The defense proffered two witnesses as experts. David Blankenhorn, who had been allowed to testify, was ultimately judged as lacking "the qualifications to offer opinion testimony".^[83] The court found that Kenneth P. Miller's "opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence."^[83]

Legal analysis of the decision[link]

Professor Doug NeJaime of Loyola Law School noted that Judge Walker's decision was crafted similarly to the standard used by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and suggested that Walker was "speaking" to Kennedy, who is commonly the swing vote on the Supreme Court.^[85] John C. Eastman, a law professor who supported Proposition 8, agreed with Professor NeJaime's assessment. Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, believed that Walker's strict handling of the case and meticulous evidence gathering would "make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."^[86]

"Only a trial court [like Walker's] can make factual findings," lawyer Brian DeVine said in an analysis. He further noted that "a Court of Appeal must give great deference to the factual findings of the trial court", and praised Walker "for carefully and diligently going through the facts of the case, creating a detailed and compelling record for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court".^[87] Andrew Cohen, CBS's legal analyst, questioned the defense team's decision to "cede so much ground at trial to their opponents" and called "inconceivable" their gamble that the conservative Supreme Court might "save the day". He praised Judge Walker's handling of the case, especially in respect to the defendant-intervenors. "During the trial, Walker practically begged and cajoled the Prop 8 lawyers to do better for their cause. He asked them written questions to draw them out. He scolded them during closing arguments to make more persuasive arguments. They simply didn't or couldn't or wouldn't respond."^[88] Lea Brilmayer, a law professor from Yale University, suggested that the perceived slant of the trial evidence and the decision resulted from "[Prop 8] supporters' sorry lawyering".^[89] Vikram Amar, a law professor from UC Davis argued that the defendant's decision to not put up a case may help them in the long run by arguing in higher courts that the evidence was irrelevant.^[90]

The religious rights law firm Liberty Counsel, which has litigated opposition to same-sex marriage in California since 2004, criticized Alliance Defense Fund's handling of the case. "ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged Proposition 8. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8."^[91]

Ed Whelan, President of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, criticized the ruling as being based on the judge's subjective and unsubstantiated views of current societal mores rather than on a neutral interpretation of the law. Whelan criticized in particular Judge Walker's repeated contention that certain facts about society were "beyond any doubt" or "beyond debate," such as Walker's contentions that same-sex parenting has been shown to be equally effective as opposite-sex parenting or that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not in any way negatively affect the rights of opponents of same-sex marriage. Whelan believes those points are in fact hotly contested.^[92]

Reaction to the judgment[link]

Rallies in support of the decision were planned in major cities across the country.^[93]

California's elected officials generally also responded positively to the ruling. Governor Schwarzenegger, who is named as a defendant in the case, said that "for the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."^[80] He also complimented Walker's conduct during the trial, congratulating his efforts to "respect both sides of the issue equally".^[94] Attorney General Brown, also a defendant, lauded the decision, calling it "great news for California". The mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Jerry Sanders, respectively — also praised the ruling.^[95] Both of California's United States Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, approved of the ruling as an advancement of equal rights.^[96]

Several Hollywood celebrities reacted positively to the decision. Ellen DeGeneres jubilantly tweeted "This just in: Equality won!" Paris Hilton also chimed in by tweeting, "What a huge historical day for equal rights in this country! They finally overturned Prop 8! There shouldn't be a law on true love. :)"^[97] Lady Gaga tweeted that the decision inspired her to write songs.^[98] Adam Lambert responded to the ruling by saying "I'm glad California has restored the right for all of its citizens to marry whomever they choose."^[98] The reaction on social networking sites like Twitter were overwhelmingly positive, with the terms "overturned" and "prop. 8" becoming trending topics immediately following the decision.^[99]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commented: "this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution – marriage..." The Roman Catholic bishops of California stated: "...the courts do not have the right to distort the meaning of marriage".^[100] National Organization for Marriage (NOM) chairman Maggie Gallagher also disagreed with the ruling. She targeted the judge's sexuality and accused Walker of "substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution". Brian Brown, President of NOM, complained of the "biased way [Walker] conducted the trial."^[101] Critics have characterized the ruling as judicial activism.^{[102][103][104]} The American Family Association called for Walker's impeachment.^[105]

Appeals court proceedings[link]

On August 4, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.^[106] Imperial County, which was denied the right to intervene as a defendant, appealed that denial and Walker's decision. In January 2011, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Imperial County appeal for lack of standing.^[107][108] Walker cast doubt on whether the defendant-intervenors had legal standing to appeal.^[109] If they lack standing, only the named defendants could appeal, and the principal named defendants, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown, refused to participate in the defense.^[110] On September 8, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied without explanation an emergency request by the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal organization, to force Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend the case on appeal.^[111]

On August 12, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed an "emergency motion" in the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal.^[112] The stay motion was heard by a 3-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit made up of Edward Leavy, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Sidney Thomas. On August 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing.^[2][113] On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal.^[114] The court also ordered both appeals calendared for oral argument during the week of December 6, 2010, in San Francisco.

The merits were heard by a different 3-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of Stephen Reinhardt, Hawkins, and N. Randy Smith.^[115] Reinhardt, the most senior of the three judges, is considered a solid liberal.^[116] Hawkins is a Clinton appointee, and Smith was appointed by George W. Bush.^[116] Erwin Chemerinsky, who filed a brief in support of Walker's ruling, characterized the panel as "ideologically diverse".^[116] Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion to disqualify Reinhardt from hearing the case,^[117] which Reinhardt denied.^[118][119] On December 6, 2010, the judges heard oral arguments, which were also televised and made available on CSPAN.^[120]

On January 4, 2011, in the appeal by the defendant-intervenors, the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court. Because California officials had declined to defend the law, the federal court asked the state court to decide whether the backers of a challenged initiative had "a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity" that would permit them to defend the law when state officials refuse to do so.^[121][122] The Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal pending a response from the California Supreme Court.^[121] The California Supreme Court heard oral argument on the certified question on September 6, 2011,^[123] and on November 17 ruled that the non-governmental proponents of Proposition 8 have the legal standing to defend it: "[I]n the past official proponents of initiative measures in California have uniformly been permitted to participate ... in numerous lawsuits in California courts challenging the validity of the initiative measure the proponents sponsored."^{[124][125][126]}

Decision and further review[link]

On February 7, 2012, the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2–1 in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Judge Stephen Reinhardt authored the majority opinion and Judge N. Randy Smith filed a dissent on the constitutional issue.^[127] Reinhardt wrote that the court did not need to consider Walker's reasons for holding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, namely that "it deprives same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry" and violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding same-sex couples from an "honored status" permitted different-sex couples. Instead, he noted the argument raised by attorneys representing the City of San Francisco: "Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry", a "distinct constitutional violation" in that it subjected a minority group to "the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason." He called this "the narrowest ground" for considering the case. He then asked if "the People of California have legitimate reasons for ... tak[ing] away from same-sex couples the right to have their lifelong partnerships dignified by the official status of 'marriage'." He found a close parallel in the case of Romer v. Evans (1996) to support his approach. He rejected each of the reasons offered as justifications for Proposition 8 and found it had no effect on child-rearing since it made no change to laws governing parenting and adoption, nor would it affect the procreative behavior of opposite-sex couples. He also rejected the notion that it reflected a reasonable attempt to "proceed with caution" in altering social institutions since more than 18,000 same-sex couples had already married and its prohibition on same-sex marriage was absolute. He wrote that the "inevitable inference" was that Proposition 8's rationale was "disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class." He concluded that "the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class."^[128]

Reinhardt's opinion is grounded in details specific to the case of California and supported by a narrow Constitutional principle.^[129] This narrowing was widely discussed and analyzed following the decision, with many legal commentators suggesting that the narrower decision was more likely to either be upheld by, or denied certiorari by, the Supreme Court. William Eskridge, writing at the Stanford Law Review, described the courts as being "unable, and usually unwilling, to strongly challenge entrenched inequalities", and went on to suggest that while California may be ready to embrace same-sex marriage, the country is not, and as a result, the Supreme Court would be "wise to deny review ... or to go along with Judge Reinhardt’s narrow ruling."^[130] Jane S. Schacter, writing at the Harvard Law Review, framed the opinion in terms of an incremental, federalist approach to securing LGBT rights. Schacter and many other commentators also suggested that Reinhardt's decision may be deliberately directed at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is widely regarded as a swing vote in any Supreme Court decision on the case.^[131][132]

On February 21, 2012, Proposition 8 supporters requested an en banc review by 11 of the Ninth Circuit's judges.^[133] If the Ninth Circuit refuses, supporters have the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.^[134][135]

Related motions[link]

Judge Walker retired in February 2011 and on April 6 told reporters that he is gay and has been in a relationship with a male doctor for about ten years.^[136] On April 25, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Walker's decision. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status, and unless he "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner", he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case".^[137] District Court Judge James Ware heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied it the next day. Ware wrote in the decision, "Requiring recusal because a court issued an injunction that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases. Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute."^[138][139] Supporters of Proposition 8 appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On November 21, 2011, the court consolidated this appeal with the merits appeal.^[140] The Appeals Court in its February 7, 2012, decision found no evidence of bias on Walker's part and rejected arguments that he recuse himself.^[141]

On September 19, 2011, Ware ordered the release of the trial videotapes to the public, which the defender-intervenors had sought to keep under seal.^[142] The Ninth Circuit stayed the release of the videos pending appeal,^[143] and heard oral arguments on the appeal on December 8, 2011.^[144] On February 2, 2012, the court decided that the videos should remain sealed. Writing for the panel, Reinhardt wrote: "The trial judge on several occasions unequivocally promised that the recording of the trial would be used only in chambers and not publicly broadcast.... To revoke Chief Judge Walker's assurances after proponents had reasonably relied on them would cause serious damage to the integrity of the judicial process."^[145]

See also[link]

• 2010 in LGBT rights
• Baker v. Nelson — 1972 case of two Minnesota male students suing state issuer of marriage licenses. U.S. Supreme Court's one-sentence decision has been interpreted as conflicting precedent by different courts. Prop 8 proponents cited this case.
• Zablocki v. Redhail — 1978 case holding that marriage is a fundamental right.
• High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office — 1990 case holding that rational basis, rather than the more stringent heightened scrutiny, was the proper standard of review of laws treating homosexuals as a class.
• Turner v. Safley — 1987 case holding marriage is a fundamental right.
• Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning — 2006 case in which a federal district court ruled that a Nebraska ballot initiative constitutionally defining marriage as only between a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages and other similar relationships violated Equal Protection, but was overturned on appeal by the Eighth Circuit.
• Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services — legal challenges to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
• 8 — a staged reenactment of the Perry trial based on the transcripts and interviews.

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Eskridge, William N., Jr. (2012). "The Ninth Circuit’s Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality". Stanford Law Review Online 64: 93–98. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/perry-marriage-equality. 
• Rosky, Clifford J. (2011). "Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the Future of Same-Sex Marriage Law". Arizona Law Review 53 (3): 913–983. http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/53-3/53arizlrev913.pdf. 
• West, Robin L. (2012). "A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage: The Limits of Perry v. Brown". Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-027. SSRN 2020293. 

External links[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

• Perry v. Schwarzenegger US District court official case site
• Transcripts of Perry. Schwarzenegger US District Court Trial
• US Ninth Circuit official site for this case
• New York Times day 1 summary of the trial
• "The Bay Area" blog of the New York Times day 2 and afterwards
• Protect Marriage, the Prop. 8 campaign site
• Video Re-enactments of the trial
• Prop 8 Trial Tracker, blog covering the trial from the plaintiffs' point of view
• "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", by Theodore J. Olson, Newsweek, January 19, 2010 — The conservative lawyer for plaintiffs explains his support.
• Lawyers for the plaintiffs discuss the trial, evidence, and legal approach on PBS.
• American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that filed this lawsuit.

Files[link]

• Final decision
• Video and Document trial evidence
• Justia Dockets — Available Legal Filings
• Amicus Curiae files
• Ware decision releasing video tapes
• Ninth Circuit decision permanantly sealing video tapes

Katy Perry
Katy Perry at the Logie Awards in 2011
Background information
Birth name	Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson
Also known as	Katy Hudson
Born	(1984-10-25) October 25, 1984 (age 27) Santa Barbara, California, U.S.
Genres	Pop, rock, dance, gospel
Occupations	Singer-songwriter, actress
Instruments	Vocals, guitar, piano
Years active	2001–present
Labels	Red Hill, Island, Columbia, Capitol
Associated acts	The Matrix
Website	Katyperry.com

Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson^[1] (born October 25, 1984), known by her stage name Katy Perry, is an American singer, songwriter and actress. Perry grew up with gospel music, and during her first year of high school she pursued a music career as Katy Hudson, releasing her first studio album called Katy Hudson which failed to chart. She recorded a solo album later, which was never released. After signing with Capitol Music Group in 2007, her fourth record label in seven years, she adopted the stage name Katy Perry.

She first gained recognition with the release of her first mainstream album, One of the Boys in 2008, which spawned three Billboard Hot 100 top-ten songs—"I Kissed A Girl", "Hot n Cold" and "Waking Up In Vegas". Perry supported the album with her Hello Katy Tour. In 2010, her third studio album, Teenage Dream (2010), which topped the Billboard 200 chart, and spawned five number one singles—"California Gurls", "Teenage Dream", "Firework", "E.T." and "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)"—Teenage Dream was the only album (after Michael Jackson's Bad)—to do so, and the first female in history to achieve this milestone. She embarked on the California Dreams Tour, which grossed nearly $60 million worldwide.^[2] Perry re-released the album under the name of Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection on March 26, 2012, and the re-release has already spawned the number-one single "Part of Me".

Perry is the only artist to spend over 52 consecutive weeks in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100, and has since heightened this to 69 weeks.^[3] As of 2012, Perry has been nominated for eight Grammy Awards. She was named 2011's "Artist of the Year" by MTV.^[4] She has sold 37.6 million digital tracks in the United States and 11 million albums worldwide.^[5] Perry was a guest judge on the seventh series of The X Factor UK and the ninth season of American Idol. She has released fragrances "Purr" and "Meow". She ventured into film, voicing Smurfette in the 2011 film The Smurfs. Perry was married to British comedian Russell Brand from 2010 to 2012.

Early life[link]

Perry was born Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson in Santa Barbara, California^[6] to Keith, a West Coast scenester in the 1960s,^[7] and Mary Hudson (née Perry), an evangelist who grew up in Southern California and had a "tempestuous" first marriage in Zimbabwe.^[7] Perry has Portuguese, German, Irish, and English ancestry.^[8][9][10] She is the second child of two pastors.^[11] She has an older sister named Angela Hudson and younger brother named David Hudson.^[12] Perry's mother's aunt and uncle were screenwriter Eleanor Perry and director Frank Perry.^[7] Perry was incorporated into her parents' ministry^[11] and sang in their church between the ages of 9 and 17.^[13] She grew up listening to gospel music,^[14] was not allowed to listen to what her mother called "secular music",^[13][15] and attended Christian schools and camps.^[11] As a child, Perry learned how to dance in a recreation building in Santa Barbara. She was taught by seasoned dancers and began with swing, Lindy Hop, and jitterbug.^[16] She took her GED after her first year at Dos Pueblos High School and decided to leave school in the pursuit of a career in music.^[17] Perry initially started singing "because [she] was at that point in [her] childhood where [she] was copycatting [her] sister and everything she [would do]."^[17] Her sister practiced with cassette tapes, while Perry took the tapes herself when her sister was not around. She rehearsed the songs and performed them in front of her parents, who suggested she take vocal coaching. She grabbed the opportunity and began taking lessons at the age of nine and continued until she was sixteen. She later enrolled in at the Music Academy of the West in Santa Barbara, and studied Italian opera for a short period of time.^[17]

Career[link]

1999–2006: Career beginnings[link]

Perry performing on her guitar, an instrument she learned to play when she was just starting her record career

When Perry was 15, her singing in church attracted the attention of rock veterans from Nashville, Tennessee, who brought her there to polish her writing skills.^[18] In Nashville, Perry started recording demos and was taught by country music veterans how to craft songs and play guitar.^[13][15] Perry signed to the Christian music label Red Hill, under which she recorded her first album at the age of 15.^[19] Performing as Katy Hudson, she released a self-titled gospel rock album in 2001.^[18] She supported this album with The Strangely Normal Tour, accompanied by Phil Joel, LaRue, Luna Halo, Earthsuit and V*Enna.^[20] The album was unsuccessful as the label ceased operations at the end of 2001.^[19] She later changed her surname to Perry, her mother's maiden name, because "Katy Hudson" was too close to film actress Kate Hudson.^[18][21]

Perry performs at the 2008 Warped Tour

At the age of 17, Perry left her home for Los Angeles, where she worked with Glen Ballard on an album for Island Records.^[22] Growing up listening to mostly gospel music, Perry had few references when she began recording songs.^[13] Asked by the producer with whom she would like to collaborate, Perry had no idea. That night, she went with her mother to a hotel. Inside, she turned on VH1 and saw producer Glen Ballard talking about Alanis Morissette;^[13] Ballard produced Morissette's Jagged Little Pill, which had a "huge influence" on Perry.^[18] She expressed interest in working with Ballard to her initial collaborator, who arranged a meeting for her with Ballard in Los Angeles. Perry presented one of her songs to Ballard. Ballard then helped Perry develop her songwriting over the next few years.^[13] The album was due for release in 2005,^[18][19] but Billboard reported it also went nowhere.^[19] Perry was dropped by The Island Def Jam Music Group.^[7] Some of Perry and Ballard's collaborations included "Box", "Diamonds" and "Long Shot", were posted on her official MySpace page. "Simple", one of the songs she recorded with Ballard, was released on the soundtrack to the 2005 film The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.^[23][24] "Long Shot" and "I Do Not Hook Up" was later recorded by Kelly Clarkson for her 2009 album All I Ever Wanted.^[25]

Perry signed to Columbia Records in 2004. However, the label was not amenable with her vision, not putting her in the "driver's seat".^[19] Instead, one of Columbia's ideas was to pair Perry with the record production team The Matrix, who was working on an album, to serve as its female vocalist. Although the album was later shelved,^[26] she caught the attention of the music press: Her burgeoning music career led to her being named "The Next Big Thing" in October 2004 by Blender magazine.^[19] With no album project ongoing, Perry began recording her own. Eighty percent completed, however, Columbia decided not to finish it and dropped her from the label.^[19] While waiting to find another label, she worked in an independent A&R company called Taxi Music. In 2006, Perry was featured in the tail-end of the video to P.O.D.'s single "Goodbye for Now".^[27] She made a cameo appearance in Carbon Leaf's video, "Learn to Fly".

[edit] 2007–09: Commercial success with One of the Boys and MTV Unplugged

While in the process of being dropped by Columbia in 2006, the company's publicity executive Angelica Cob-Baehler enthusiastically recommended Perry to Virgin Records chairman Jason Flom.^[28] At the time Flom was leading a complete revival in fortunes at the label and looking to crown recent achievements by breaking a global pop act.^[28] Despite mixed reactions from fellow Virgin executives, Flom became convinced that Perry could be that breakthrough star, and at the start of 2007 extended discussions with Columbia resulted in Perry signing to the newly created Capitol Music Group, a merger between Virgin and Capitol. As part of the deal, the label secured the masters to the unfinished album, recorded while at Columbia, that would go on to form a significant part of her official mainstream debut album, One of the Boys.^[28]

The Columbia recordings were seen by Flom as being "very strong but lacking an undeniable smash or two that would work both at U.S. pop radio and internationally" and so one of the executive's first actions after completing the signing was to set up a collaboration between Perry and the writer-producer Dr. Luke.^[28] The results were the songs "I Kissed a Girl" and "Hot n Cold". Establishing her image was one of the immediate concerns of her management.^[19] A campaign was started in November 2007 with the release of the video to "Ur So Gay", aimed at introducing her to the music market. A digital EP led by "Ur So Gay" was later released to create online buzz and press story.^[11][19][29] This was a successful move that resulted in bringing Perry to the attention of Madonna,^[19] who mentioned her on KISS FM and KRQ's JohnJay & Rich morning show in Arizona. On March 10, 2008, she appeared as herself on the ABC Family television series, Wildfire, on the episode "Life's Too Short".^[30]

Perry during Hello Katy Tour on March 27, 2009

In the next step of promoting the album, Perry undertook a two-month tour of radio stations. The album's official lead single, "I Kissed a Girl", was released on May 6, 2008. Perry's A&R, Chris Anokute, told HitQuarters the song and its controversial theme had met with strong resistance at the label: "People said, 'This is never going to get played on the radio. How do we sell this? How’s this going to be played in the bible belt?'"^[29] Anokute said that they needed the support of one of the label's radio promoters to convince people to believe in the record; otherwise, Perry would have likely been dropped again. Capitol's SVP of Promotions, Dennis Reese, saw the vision and helped push the single on national radio. The first station to pick it up and take a chance was The River in Nashville. After playing it for three days they were innundated with enthusiastic calls.^[29] With the song climbing atop the charts, Perry embarked on the annual Warped Tour music festival, which her management used to "establish her as a credible performer and make sure she wasn't seen as just a one-hit wonder."^[19] The single was a commercial success, peaking at number one for seven weeks on the Billboard Hot 100.^[19] It has since become a major worldwide hit, topping charts in 30 countries,^[26] including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.^[31] On June 12, 2008, Perry appeared as herself on the daytime soap opera The Young and the Restless,^[30] posing for the cover to the June 2008 issue of the fictional magazine Restless Style.^[32] Perry also performed backing vocals on the song, "Another Night in the Hills" from Gavin Rossdale's 2008 solo album Wanderlust.^[33]

One of the Boys was released on June 17, 2008, to mixed critical reviews.^[34] The album has reached number nine on the Billboard 200,^[35] and has been certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America.^[36] Perry released her second single, "Hot n Cold", which became her second top three single in dozens of countries around the world, including the United States where it reached number three on the Billboard Hot 100,^[19] as well as topping the charts in Germany, Canada, and Denmark. After Perry wrapped up her appearance at the Warped Tour, she went on tours in Europe. She later launched her first headlining tour, the Hello Katy Tour, in January 2009.^[19] "I Kissed a Girl" earned Perry a nomination for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance at the 2009 Grammy Awards.^[37] Perry was nominated in five categories at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards, including Best New Artist and Best Female Video, but lost to Britney Spears.^[38] She won Best New Act at the 2008 MTV Europe Music Awards, which she co-hosted,^[39] and Best International Female Artist at the 2009 BRIT Awards.^[40] On February 9, 2009, both "I Kissed a Girl" and "Hot n Cold" were certified three-time platinum by Recording Industry Association of America for individual digital sales of over three million.^[41] The Guinness Book of World Records recognized Perry in its 2010 version as the "Best Start on the US Digital Chart by a Female Artist," for having her first two singles sell over two million digital copies.^[42]

Perry during the Hello Katy Tour in June 2009

The Matrix's self-titled debut album, which features Perry, was later released via the team's label, Let's Hear It, during Perry's solo tour. When the release date was scheduled, "I Kissed a Girl" had been charting well. Matrix member Lauren Christy spoke to Perry about the decision, but she wanted to hold the release until the fourth single of One of the Boys had been dispatched. Despite their communication, The Matrix was released on January 27, 2009, via iTunes Store.^[43]

In December 2008, Perry apologized to British singer Lily Allen for remarks in which she called herself a "skinnier version" of her, saying she meant it as a joke.^[44] Allen retaliated and told a British radio station that she "happen[ed] to know for a fact that she [Perry] was an American version" of her because their record company needed "to find something controversial and 'kooky'" like her.^[45] In January 2009, Perry embarked on her first headlining world tour, the Hello Katy Tour, visiting North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Beginning on January 23, 2009, and ending on November 28, 2009, the tour consisted of 89 concerts. During that time, Perry also opened select concerts for the band No Doubt, on their Summer Tour 2009.

On May 16, 2009, Perry performed at the opening ceremony of the annual Life Ball in Vienna, Austria.^[46] In June 2009, lawyers acting for Perry opposed the then-recent trademark of Australian fashion designer Katie Perry, who uses her own name to market loungewear.^[47] Some media outlets reported this as a lawsuit, which Perry denied on her blog.^[48] Katie Perry reported on her blog that at a hearing with IP Australia on July 10, 2009, the singer's lawyers withdrew their opposition to the trademark.^[49] During the summer of 2009 Perry filmed a cameo appearance for Get Him to the Greek; her scene, in which she kisses her future fiancé Russell Brand was cut, and does not appear in the final film. Discussing the issue with MTV, Perry hypothesized there may have been some fear that seeing the two make out would have taken viewers out of the experience.^[50] In 2009, Perry was featured on two singles: in August, a remix of Colorado-based band 3OH!3's song "Starstrukk" (the idea for the collaboration having come after Perry's tour that featured 3OH!3 as the supporting act, the song being released by iTunes on September 8, 2009); and, thereafter, in December, on "If We Ever Meet Again", the fourth single from Timbaland's album Shock Value II.^[51] In October 2009, MTV Unplugged revealed that Perry was one of the artists to perform for them, and that she would be releasing a live album of the performance, including two new tracks, "Brick by Brick" and Fountains of Wayne cover "Hackensack".^[52] The album, released on November 17, included both a CD and a DVD,^[53] and debuted at No. 168 on the US Billboard 200 chart.