Since I keep using it as an example in class, here are some resources on the Prop 8 case itself.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law (Judge Walker, Federal District court)
Opening brief in appeal of decision outlining arguments against the decision.
Note that standing is an issue in this case addressed in the opening brief. “Defendant-intervenor” means that Gov Schwarzeneggar and Atty Gen Brown, the original defendants in the case due to their positions in CA state government, are not taking up the appeal (they both support same sex marriage in CA). Dennis Hollingsworth has taken their place in the appeals process, he is an original supporter of the ballot measure Prop 8. It is not obvious that he can establish that he has been harmed by the overturning of Prop 8 and so may be denied standing to appeal the case. However, standing is a flexible concept and I assume that the Ninth Circuit will grant standing even if the argument for standing is relatively weak.
Perry’s attorneys now have a month to reply to the brief, they will surely address the standing issue and the other arguments contained in the brief linked above.
There is a stay on the injunction issued by the district court until the appeal is decided. Essentially, this means that Prop 8 is still in effect as long as the appeals process goes on and same sex marriages are not being performed in CA.