Romer v. Evans: A Landmark Decision on Equal Protection for LGBTQ+ Individuals

Romer v. Evans: A Landmark Decision on Equal Protection for LGBTQ+ Individuals

Introduction

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996), stands as a pivotal Supreme Court decision that significantly advanced the legal standing of LGBTQ+ individuals under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case emerged from Colorado's Amendment 2, a state constitutional amendment enacted through a statewide referendum in 1992, which prohibited any governmental action designed to protect individuals based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."

The primary parties involved were the petitioners, including the Governor of Colorado, defending Amendment 2, and the respondents, comprising aggrieved homosexuals and affected municipalities challenging the amendment's constitutionality. The key issue revolved around whether Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause by targeting a specific class—sexual orientation—and thereby infringing upon the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Summary of the Judgment

In a decisive ruling, the United States Supreme Court held that Colorado's Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion, emphasizing that Amendment 2 imposed a broad and undifferentiated disability on homosexual individuals, denying them specific legal protections against discrimination. The Court rejected the state's argument that the amendment merely denied special rights to homosexuals, clarifying that it effectively relegated them to a marginalized status without a rational basis related to legitimate state interests.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, contended that the amendment was a legitimate expression of voters' moral values and did not constitute unconstitutional animosity toward homosexuals. The dissent argued that the Court overstepped its bounds by invalidating a democratically enacted state amendment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The majority opinion extensively referenced prior Supreme Court cases to establish the framework for evaluating equal protection claims. Notable among these were:

  • HELLER v. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) – Discussed the rational basis review for equal protection cases.
  • REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) – Emphasized the principle of "one person, one vote," reinforcing equal participation in the political process.
  • Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) – Highlighted the limitations of Congress's power to prohibit discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • SWEATT v. PAINTER, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) – Affirmed that equal protection cannot be achieved through arbitrary distinctions.

These precedents collectively established that any law targeting a specific class must be subject to strict scrutiny, especially when it affects fundamental rights or involves suspect classifications like sexual orientation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the argument that Amendment 2 was not just another discriminatory law but an unprecedented classification that singled out homosexual individuals without a rational basis tied to a legitimate governmental interest. The majority highlighted that:

  • Amendment 2's broad language prohibited both specific and general protections against discrimination for gays and lesbians.
  • The amendment lacked a clear, rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, such as freeing resources to fight discrimination against other groups or respecting landlords' freedom of association.
  • The classification was inherently status-based, undertaken for its own sake, which is impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court emphasized that laws must not create barriers to protection mechanisms that are otherwise available to all citizens, ensuring that no class is deprived of the right to seek redress for discrimination.

Impact

The decision in Romer v. Evans had profound implications for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States:

  • Legal Precedent: Established that laws targeting individuals based on sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny, paving the way for future cases challenging discriminatory statutes.
  • Social Implications: Signaled a shift towards greater legal recognition and protection for LGBTQ+ individuals, contributing to the broader movement for equality and civil rights.
  • Legislative Influence: Encouraged states to reconsider and revise discriminatory laws, fostering a more inclusive legal environment.
  • Judicial Approach: Reinforced the judiciary's role in safeguarding minority rights against majority-imposed prejudices.

Subsequent cases, including Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), built upon the foundation laid by Romer, further advancing the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights across the nation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Equal Protection Clause

Part of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws." In simpler terms, it requires states to treat individuals in similar situations equally.

Strict Scrutiny

The highest standard of judicial review used by courts when evaluating the constitutionality of laws that classify people based on race, religion, national origin, or fundamental rights. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Suspect Classification

Categories defined by the judiciary as invoking a particularly strong presumption of illegality in any legislation touching them. Race, national origin, and religion are typical suspect classifications. Sexual orientation has been treated similarly in subsequent rulings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans marked a seminal moment in the advancement of equal protection for LGBTQ+ individuals. By invalidating Colorado's Amendment 2, the Court underscored the unconstitutionality of laws that single out a specific class without a legitimate, rational basis. This ruling not only reinforced the principle that the law must remain neutral and impartial but also emboldened future legal challenges against discriminatory practices. The enduring legacy of Romer lies in its affirmation that equal protection under the law is a fundamental right, regardless of societal prejudices, thereby bolstering the path towards a more inclusive and equitable legal landscape.

Case Details

Year: 1996
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

Clarence ThomasAnthony McLeod KennedyAntonin Scalia

Attorney(S)

Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General of Colorado, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John Daniel Dailey and Paul Farley, Deputy Attorneys General, and Rex E. Lee and Carter G. Phillips, Special Assistant Attorneys General. Jean E. Dubofsky argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief for respondents Evans et al. were Roderick M. Hills, Jr., Matthew Coles, Steven R. Shapiro, Clyde J. Wadsworth, Suzanne B. Goldberg, Jeanne Winer, Gregory A. Eurich, David H. Miller, Darlene M. Ebert, Joseph N. de Raismes III, and Walter A. Smith, Jr. John P. Worcester and Edward M. Caswall filed a brief for respondents City of Aspen et al. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by Charles J. Cooper, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Daniel E. Lungren of California, Alan G. Lance of Idaho, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Charles Molony Condon of South Carolina, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, and James S. Gilmore III of Virginia; for the American Center for Law and Justice Family Life Project by Jay Alan Sekulow and Keith A. Fournier; for the Christian Legal Society et al. by Steven T. McFarland, Samuel B. Casey, Gregory S. Baylor, and John K. Hulston Hall; for Colorado for Family Values by Robert K. Skolrood; for Concerned Women for America, Inc., by David J. Myers and Wendell R. Bird; for Equal Rights, Not Special Rights, Inc., by Michael A. Carvin, William L McGrath, and Robert H. Bork; for the Family Research Council by Melissa Wells-Petry; for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Anthony T. Caso and Deborah J. La Fetra; and for the Oregon Citizens Alliance et al. by Lawrence J. Hall. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Oregon et al. by Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General of Oregon, Thomas A. Balmer, Deputy Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Michael D. Reynolds, Assistant Solicitor General, and Rives Kistler, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, of Massachusetts, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada, Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, and Garland Pinkston, Jr., Acting Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia; for the City of Atlanta et al. by Louise H. Renne, Dennis Aftergut, Burk e. Delventhal, Julia M.C. Friedlander, Mary Carole Cooney, Robin Joy Shahar, Neal M. Janey, Stephen H. Clark, James K. Hahn, David I. Schulman, Eunice Gibson, Paul A. Crotty, Leonard A. Kerner, Jeffrey L. Rogers, Linda Meng, Janet E. Halley, Mark H. Sidran, Henry W. Underhill, Jr., and Susan S. Sher; for Affirmation: United Methodists for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns et al. by Celeste McCollough; for the American Bar Association by George E. Bushnell, Jr.; for the American Association on Mental Retardation et al. by James W. Ellis and Maureen A. Sanders; for The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, by John C. Dempsey and Larry P. Weinberg; for the American Friends Service Committee et al. by Stark Ritchie; for the American Psychological Association et al. by Paul M. Smith, James L. McHugh, Jr., and Richard G. Taranto; for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. by Eben Moglen and Pamela S. Karlan; for the Colorado Bar Association et al. by Stephen V. Bomse, Martha Minow, and Frances A. Koncilja; for the Gay and Lesbian Lawyers of Philadelphia by Cletus P. Lyman; for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. by Eric Schnapper, Elaine R. Jones, Theodore M. Shaw, Antonia Hernandez, Judith L. Lichtman, and Donna R. Lenhoff; for the National Education Association et al. by J. Clay Smith, Jr., for the National Education Association et al. by Robert H. Chanin and John M. West; for James E. Andrews by Eric J. Graninger; and for Laurence H. Tribe et al. by Mr. Tribe, pro se, John Hart Ely, pro se, Philip B. Kurland, pro se, and Kathleen M. Sullivan, pro se. Chai R. Feldblum filed a brief for the Human Rights Campaign Fund et al. as amici curiae.

Comments