Romer v. Evans

United States Supreme Court
517 U.S. 620 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state constitutional amendment that identifies persons by a single trait and denies them, and only them, the right to seek specific legal protection from discrimination lacks a rational relationship to any legitimate state interest and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

Several Colorado municipalities, including Aspen, Boulder, and the City and County of Denver, enacted local ordinances that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in areas such as housing, employment, and public accommodations.
These local ordinances prompted a contentious, statewide political campaign.
In a 1992 statewide referendum, Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to the state constitution.
Amendment 2's text explicitly repealed the existing municipal ordinances that protected individuals based on their homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
The amendment further prohibited any branch of state or local government from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy that would grant protected status or a claim of discrimination based on homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships.
As a result, gay and lesbian individuals were uniquely barred from seeking legislative, executive, or judicial protection against discrimination that all other citizens could seek.

Procedural Posture:

Richard Evans, along with other individuals and municipalities, sued Governor Roy Romer in the District Court for the City and County of Denver (a state trial court), seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Amendment 2.
The state trial court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the enforcement of Amendment 2.
Romer (appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The Supreme Court of Colorado upheld the injunction, holding that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny because it infringed on a fundamental right to participate in the political process, and remanded the case.
On remand, the state trial court held a full trial and found Amendment 2 unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
Romer (appellant) again appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the trial court's permanent injunction.
Romer (petitioner) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state constitutional amendment that prevents any level of state or local government from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any law or policy protecting persons from discrimination based on their homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes, the state constitutional amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause. Amendment 2 singles out a class of persons for disfavored legal status, imposing a special disability upon them alone by withdrawing specific legal protections and forbidding them from seeking such protections in the future. The law is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them protection across the board, which is a departure from our constitutional tradition. It fails even rational basis review, as its breadth is so discontinuous with the state's proffered justifications—such as protecting the associational freedoms of landlords and employers and conserving resources to fight other forms of discrimination—that it is inexplicable by anything other than animus toward the class it affects. A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Dissenting - Justice Scalia

No, the state constitutional amendment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The amendment is a modest and constitutional measure by Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority. It does not deny equal protection but merely denies preferential treatment; homosexuals remain protected by general laws against arbitrary discrimination. The majority's holding contradicts the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that states could criminalize homosexual conduct; if such conduct can be criminalized, it is surely permissible for a state to merely disfavor it by denying it special protections. This decision mistakes a legitimate 'Kulturkampf' (culture war) for a fit of spite and imposes the views of a judicial elite on the democratic process.

Analysis:

Romer v. Evans marked a significant turning point in equal protection jurisprudence concerning LGBTQ+ rights. The decision established that laws motivated by animus toward a particular group are unconstitutional, even under the deferential rational basis standard. This application of a more stringent rational basis review, often termed "rational basis with bite," signaled that the Court would scrutinize laws that appear to target politically unpopular groups for disadvantage. The case set a crucial precedent by invalidating a law that restructured the political process to uniquely disadvantage one group, laying the groundwork for future landmark decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Romer v. Evans (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"