Constitutional Law
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Romer v. Evans: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation violate the Equal Protection Clause if they create a classification that is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Colorado's Amendment 2, which prohibited the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class under state anti-discrimination laws. Professors often emphasize the Court's reasoning that Amendment 2 creates a classification that denies homosexual and bisexual individuals equal protection under the law, which forms a basis for understanding how the Equal Protection Clause is applied to different classifications related to identity. This case is pivotal in illustrating the intersection of sexual orientation and constitutional rights, highlighting the importance of rational basis review in equal protection cases.
The decision also underscores the notion that the government cannot enact laws based solely on animosity towards a particular group, which illuminates broader themes of discrimination and civil rights. By invalidating Amendment 2, the Court affirmed the principle that laws targeting specific groups for disparate treatment may lack a legitimate foundation, serving as a significant precedent in the evolving legal landscape regarding LGBTQ+ rights.
Romer: 'Rational Basis, No Animosity' - A reminder that laws cannot be justified by bias.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Bowers v. Hardwick | Bowers upheld a state's right to regulate private sexual conduct whereas Romer struck down a law that discriminated against a group based on sexual orientation. |
| United States v. Windsor | Windsor focused on the federal recognition of same-sex marriage, while Romer primarily addressed state-level anti-discrimination protections. |
| Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell dealt with the right to same-sex marriage, expanding on the principles established in Romer by further affirming equality under the law. |
Prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation is essential for ensuring civil rights and promoting equality in society.
Some argue that states have the right to enact laws that reflect majority opinion, which could potentially include discriminatory amendments.
This case often appears on exams regarding equal protection analysis, particularly in discussing the standards of review and the implications of discerning classifications based on sexual orientation. Students might be asked to apply the Court's rationale in hypothetical scenarios involving similar classifications.