Romer v. Evans
 | |
| Romer v. Evans | |
| Reference: 517 US 620 | |
| Term: 1996 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: October 10, 1995 Decided: May 20, 1996 | |
| Outcome | |
| Colorado Supreme Court affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| John Paul Stevens • Anthony Kennedy • Sandra Day O'Connor • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • David Souter | |
| Dissenting | |
| Antonin Scalia • Clarence Thomas • William Rehnquist | |
Romer v. Evans is a case decided on May 20, 1996, by the United States Supreme Court holding 6-3 that a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited any official protections for those who face discrimination due to their sexual orientation was unconstitutional. The court found that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and affirmed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court.[1][2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision established the precedent that citizens are granted legal protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. To read more about the impact of Romer v. Evans, click here.
Background
During the early 1990s, multiple Colorado municipalities passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, and health and welfare services. The majority of Colorado residents approved of legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation; however, they opposed affirmative action based on sexual orientation. To prohibit these local municipalities from allowing affirmative action based on sexual orientation, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution on November 3, 1992, known as Colorado No Protected Status for Sexual Orientation Amendment. This amendment barred any legislative, executive, or judicial action by state or local governments to protect citizens from discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
Richard G. Evans, a gay man from Denver, filed suit along with a coalition of Colorado residents and local municipalities against Governor Roy Romer and Republican state party officials seeking to enjoin the amendment. The petitioners argued that Amendment 2 violated Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause by denying members of the LGBTQ community legal protections against discrimination.
A state trial court enjoined Amendment 2. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the decision, concluding Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause.[2]
Oral argument
An oral argument was held on October 10, 1995. The case was decided on May 20, 1996.[1]
Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to affirm the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter, wrote the opinion of the court. Kennedy argued Amendment 2 classifies people who identify as part of the LGBTQ community as unequal to others, therefore violating the equal protection clause:[2]
| “ | We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause...[3] | ” |
| —Anthony Kennedy, majority opinion in Romer v. Evans[2] | ||
Dissenting opinions
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not as reprehensible as racial or religious bias, and therefore the enactment of Amendment 2 should be left up to the people of Colorado to decide through democratic means:
| “ | In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions.[3] | ” |
| —Antonin Scalia, dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Romer v. Evans established the precedent that citizens are granted legal protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This decision was cited in later cases concerning sexual orientation, including Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Hollingsworth v. Perry in 2009.[1][2]
In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that most penalties of criminal punishment for consensual sexual activity between two adults of the same sex are unconstitutional. The case concerned Houston police officers who entered a man's private residence and saw him and another adult man engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. The two men were arrested and convicted of violating a Texas statute prohibiting two persons of the same sex to engage in intimate sexual conduct. The Texas State Court of Appeals held that the Texas statute was constitutional, citing Bowers v. Hardwick in which the court found that the U.S. Constitution does not grant a fundamental right to people of the same sex to engage in consensual sodomy. The U.S. Supreme Court cited Romer in its decision, which reversed the decision of the Texas State Court of Appeals and held that the Texas statute violated the right to liberty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[4]
Later, inHollingsworth v. Perry the U.S. Supreme Court cited Romer in its 5-4 decision ruling that an appeal of a circuit court ruling that struck down California's Proposition 8 (a ballot measure that was passed in 2008 barring marriage between same-sex couples) was invalid. The proposition was originally thrown out by federal judges who ruled in favor of a lawsuit that argued Proposition 8 had violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The proponents of Proposition 8 then filed an appeal against the federal judges' decision, arguing the proposition was legal. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry struck down their appeal, arguing the petitioners did not have standing to appeal the circuit court decision.[5]
See also
- The Rehnquist Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
- Federalism
- Colorado No Protected Status for Sexual Orientation Amendment, Initiative 2 (1992)
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Romer v. Evans," accessed August 11, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Justia, "Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)," accessed August 11, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Oyez, "Lawrence v. Texas," accessed January 6, 2023
- ↑ Oyez, "Hollingsworth v. Perry," accessed January 6, 2023
| ||||||||||||||||||||
