Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) p.737

SUBJECT

equal protection: sexual orientation

FACTS

A Colorado state constitutional amendment, adopted in a 1992 statewide referendum, forbade the state and its agencies and political subdivisions to enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships would constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of discrimination.

PROCEDURE

The Supreme Court of Colorado, in sustaining the interim injunction and in remanding the case for further proceedings, (1) interpreted the amendment as having (a) the immediate objective of repealing existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies of state and local entities that had barred discrimination based on sexual orientation, and (b) the ultimate effect of prohibiting any Colorado governmental entity from adopting similar or more protective provisions in the future; and (2) said that the amendment was subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment as infringing the fundamental right of homosexuals to participate in the political process. On remand, the District Court enjoined enforcement of the Colorado amendment, on the ground that the amendment was not necessary to support any compelling state interest and was not narrowly tailored to meet such an interest. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed.

RATIONAL

it was held that the Colorado amendment, as authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court of Colorado, was invalid as violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because (1) the Colorado amendment (a) put homosexuals in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres, and (b) withdrew from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination and forbade reinstatement of these laws and policies; (2) even if homosexuals could find some safe harbor in antidiscrimination laws of general application, the Colorado amendment's prohibition on specific legal protections did not merely deprive homosexuals of special rights, but rather imposed a special disability upon those persons alone; and (3) the Colorado amendment did not bear a rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose, such as the state's interests in (a) respect for other citizens' freedom of association, and (b) conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups.

Created on: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 at 12:58:07 (PST)