Almost immediately after Mr. Cooper began his argument, Chief Justice Roberts sought to explore the issue of whether the anti-equality Proposition 8 supporters have legal standing to bring suit to enforce Proposition 8. “Standing” is a doctrine rooted in Article III of the Constitution, which limits the power of citizens to bring litigation in federal courts. Conservative courts in particular have used standing doctrine to limit litigants’ access to court over the past several decades. As Justice Ginsburg points out, the Court has never granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives, and it would be a radical departure from the Supreme Court’s standing doctrine to do so in Hollingsworth. While an individual may have power under state law to enforce laws in state court, that general public action is not allowed in federal court without specific authorization under federal law, or specific individualized harm. If the justices were to decide that the anti-equality litigants did not have legal standing to appeal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s injunction against Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit opinion would be vacated, but Proposition 8 would remain barred from taking effect. In other words, a dismissal on standing grounds would likewise be a victory for pro-equality forces.