Chronology of Lawsuits
The Chronology of Proposition 209 Lawsuits
11/05/96 – Proposition 209 is voted into law by the people of California as an amendment to the California Constitution. The initiative was approved by a 54 percent – 46 percent margin.
11/06/96 – In San Francisco, the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, file a complaint in the United States District court for the Northern District of California (in San Francisco), challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 209 under the federal constitution. The case is randomly assigned to District Judge Vaughn Walker. At the same time, plaintiffs file a Notice of Related Case, asserting that the new case is related to an older case previously assigned to Judge Thelton Henderson. Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order against Governor Pete Wilson and Attorney General Dan Lungren to preclude them from immediately implementing Proposition 209.
11/08/96 – State defendant Superintendent of Public Institution Delaine Eastin files brief agreeing with plaintiffs’ Notice of Related Case.
11/12/96 – Defendants Governor Pete Wilson and Attorney General Dan Lungren, as well as Joanne Kozberg and James Gomez (hereafter “State defendants”), file their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Case .
11/13/96 – Judge Henderson rules on the “related case” notice, ordering them to be related . Plaintiff’s case challenging Proposition 209 is reassigned to Judge Henderson for all purposes.
11/15/96 – State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin files a Statement of Non-Opposition to plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order against Governor Wilson and Attorney General Lungren.
11/18/96 – State defendants file their Opposition to plaintiffs’ request for Temporary Restraining Order . They also file a motion asking the district court of abstain from hearing plaintiff’s complaint, in order that state courts may have the first opportunity to interpret the provisions of Proposition 209.
11/27/96 – The district court issues its Order granting plaintiffs’ request for Temporary Restraining Order . Plaintiffs then file a motion for Preliminary Injunction to block implementation of Proposition 209, through and until the case is resolved in the district court.
12/05/96 – State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin files a Non-Opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for Preliminary Injunction.
12/06/96 – State defendants file their Opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for Preliminary Injunction .
12/10/96 – State defendants file their answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.
12/23/96 – The district court issues its Order granting Preliminary Injunction . The injunction remains in place until a hearing has been set. No hearing date has been set.
01/03/97 – State defendants file Notice of Appeal of Preliminary Injunction in 9 th Circuit Court of Appeal. 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals governs the states of California, Arizona, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada and Idaho.
1/15/97 – State defendants file a writ asking the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals (panel made up of Judges O’Scannlain, Leavy and Kleinfeld) to rule that Henderson erred by taking the case away from the randomly assigned judge, Judge Walker.
1/23/97 – State defendants’ writ denied
1/97 – Prop. 209 authors’ counsel file request for Henderson to stay his preliminary injunction.
1/97 – Prop. 209 authors’ ask 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Henderson’s order.
01/29/97 – Clinton Administration files brief in the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting ACLU’s lawsuit and Judge Henderson’s grant of preliminary injunction.
01/31/97 – State defendants file their opposing in the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Judge Henderson improperly issued a injunction against Prop. 209. Plaintiffs have 30 days to respond.
01/31/97 – American Civil Rights Institute, Institute for Justice and others file a brief asking the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn preliminary injunction.
1/7/97 – Henderson denies request to stay his injunction.
Hi-Voltage Decision 11/30/2000
Connerly vs. State Personnel Board Decision 9/4/01