Cases by Issue - Miscellaneous

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1288

Petitioner

Village of Willowbrook

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Olech

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

528 U.S. 562 (2000)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 2000

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 2000

Advocates

James L. DeAno (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Irving L. Gornstein (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court)

John R. Wimmer (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Grace Olech asked the Village of Willowbrook to connect her property to the municipal water supply. The Village conditioned the connection on Olech's granting of a 33-foot easement. Olech refused, claiming that the Village only required a 15-foot easement from other property owners seeking access to the water supply. Olech sued the Village claiming that the Village's demand of an additional 18-foot easement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the case for failure to state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff can allege an equal protection violation by asserting that state action was motivated solely by a "spiteful effort to 'get' him for reasons wholly unrelated to any legitimate state objective."

Question

Does the Equal Protection Clause give rise to a cause of action on behalf of a "class of one" where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Olech, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Olech's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis. "Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a 'class of one,' where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment," stated the unanimous, unsigned opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer concurred.

Romer v. Evans

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:28 +0000

Location

Colorado General Assembly

200 E Colfax Ave Denver CO 80203

Denver, CO 80203

United States

39° 44' 24.1332" N, 104° 59' 3.9048" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1039

Petitioner

Romer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Evans

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 620 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1995

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1996

Advocates

Timothy M. Tymkovich (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jean E. Dubofsky (on behalf of the Respondents)

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

Decision: 6 votes for Evans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

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."

Jones v. Helms

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-850

Appellee

Helms

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jones

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 412 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Carol Atha Cosgrove (on behalf of the Appellant)

James C. Bonner, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

None