The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 10, 1995
Decision: Monday, May 20, 1996
Issues: Privacy, Miscellaneous
Categories: discrimination, equal protection, fourteenth amendment, sexuality
Tags: Rehnquist: Invidious Discrimination, Rehnquist on iTunes U

Advocates

Jean E. Dubofsky (on behalf of the Respondents)
Timothy M. Tymkovich (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.

Question

Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for Evans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Equal Protection
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039/>
(last visited ).