This discrimination, coupled with the state's failure to offer any compelling state interests that would justify the enactment of Amendment 2, led the court to invalidate the amendment. U.S. Reports: Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620. The Colorado Supreme Court found that the ultimate result of Amendment 2 was to prohibit any legislation dealing with sexual orientation unless the state constitution was first amended to permit such measures. Laws will be upheld under strict scrutiny if they are supported by a compelling state interest and are narrowly drawn to achieve that interest in the least restrictive manner possible. U.S. Reports: Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392 (1998). Colorado contended that Amendment 2 was not discriminatory. New York: Simon & Schuster.
The amendment provided in part that neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions "shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.".
The amendment at issue in Romer v. Evans, known as Amendment 2, was placed on the November 1992 ballot following a petition drive. Rather, the state argued that Amendment 2 put gays and lesbians in the same position as everyone else. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.
2d 855 (1996), is a landmark and controversial decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prohibited state and local governments from enacting any law, regulation, or policy that would, in effect, protect the civil rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. In addition, Amendment 2 would remove anti-discrimination protections for all transactions involving housing, the sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. 1995. Tafel, Richard L. 1999. Indiana Law Journal 76 (spring). They obtained a permanent injunction in state court that prevented the amendment from going into effect. The amendment was immediately challenged in state court by eight individuals and the cities of Denver, Boulder, and Aspen, which had gay rights ordinances in effect. Supreme Court of the United States - Kennedy, Anthony M. Supreme Court of the United States - Rehnquist, William H. Supreme Court of the United States - O'Connor, Sandra Day, National Transportation Safety Board (N.T.S.).
Citing Primary Sources.
The Court drew from Amendment 2 "the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected."
The Justices split 6-3.
[Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep517620/. These modifications would produce farreaching changes in the legal status of gays and lesbians and the structure and operation of modern anti-discrimination laws. This provision repealed the local ordinances, and banned the enactment of new laws that prohibited discrimination on the basis of “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.”.
In 1994 the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the trial court (Evans v. Romer, 882 P.2d. The court applied the strict scrutiny standard in analyzing the amendment. In light of the serious deficiencies in the amendment's scope and the failure of the state to articulate a legitimate state interest, the Court ruled that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The only way homosexuals could obtain civil rights protection under Colorado law would be to convince enough citizens to vote to amend the state constitution. This page has been accessed 21,789 times. Ante, at 4. R ", Justice Kennedy viewed the disqualification of gays and lesbians from the right to obtain specific protection from the law as unprecedented and a denial of equal protection "in the most literal sense." In equal protection cases, the Court will uphold a legislative classification if it neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, and if it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. 2d 1007 (N.D. Cal. Seated, from left to right: Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, rejected this interpretation as implausible. New York: Simon & Schuster. Amendment 2 was challenged in state court. Today in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Romer v.Evans, a case significant for several reasons.. To constitutional law buffs, the case is important because it is one of the rare instances that the Supreme Court found a law unconstitutional after a rational basis review. It imposed "a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group," and the "sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
Accidental Activist: A Personal and Political Memoir. Duncan, William C. 2001. Sustaining the interim injunction and remanding the case for further proceedings, the State Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. The Colorado Supreme Court held that this classification on the basis of sexual orientation triggered strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Other Legal Theories: Substantive due process State action doctrine. It's a living legal community making laws accessible and interactive.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on behalf of Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Defining Moments in Law: The 14th Amendment Plessy v. Ferguson Brown v. Board of Education Loving v. Virginia U.S. v. Virginia Romer v. Evans Lawrence v. Texas. Based on this analysis of the potential reach of Amendment 2, Kennedy concluded that the amendment went well beyond merely depriving gays and lesbians of special rights. Gingrich, Candace, and Chris Bull. These local ordinances proved to be unpopular statewide.
U.S. Reports: Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620. In Romer this type of inquiry broke down because the amendment was both too narrow and too broad. No.
In 1992, the people of Colorado adopted Amendment 2 to the state constitution. Party Crasher: A Gay Republican Challenges Politics as Usual. "The Legacy of Romer v. Evans—So Far." Standing, from left to right: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen G. Breyer. Romer v. Evans. Retrieved from the Library of Congress,
Reflecting on the constitutional tradition, he concluded that the idea of the rule of law and the guarantee of equal protection were based on "the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance.". That is, the Amendment only denied gays and lesbians “special” rights.
", The key question for the Court was whether the amendment violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which promises that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed.