Indirectly: the court held that ProtectMarriage.com, as a private group intervening in the case, didn't have standing to appeal a ruling striking down a state law, even if it's one that had been adopted through an initiative they had proposed.
The sequence of events was: a federal court struck down a California law (passed via Proposition 8), and California, rather than appealing the decision, said "ok" and accepted the ruling. That leaves no remaining live controversy between the State and the federal court system, so nothing for an appeals court to hear (says today's decision).
The decision was 5-4 but not strictly on ideological lines: 2 conservatives and 3 liberals in the majority, 3 conservatives and 1 liberal dissenting.
> The decision was 5-4 but not strictly on ideological lines: 2 conservatives and 3 liberals in the majority, 3 conservatives and 1 liberal dissenting.
The assumption that the ideology of members of the court is unidimensional is not justified. "Not strictly according to the popularly perceived ideological factions of the court" is probably more supportable than "not strictly on ideological lines".
The sequence of events was: a federal court struck down a California law (passed via Proposition 8), and California, rather than appealing the decision, said "ok" and accepted the ruling. That leaves no remaining live controversy between the State and the federal court system, so nothing for an appeals court to hear (says today's decision).
The decision was 5-4 but not strictly on ideological lines: 2 conservatives and 3 liberals in the majority, 3 conservatives and 1 liberal dissenting.