Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Romer v. Evans

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Constitutional Law

equal protectionsexual orientationrational basisanimusEqual Protection Clauserational basis reviewanimussexual orientation

Facts

Colorado adopted Amendment 2, which repealed existing state and local measures protecting homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual persons from discrimination based on sexual orientation and barred all future legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government granting such protection. Existing municipal ordinances in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver had prohibited discrimination on that basis in areas such as housing, employment, education, public accommodations, and health and welfare services. The amendment also repealed state executive and college policies protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. Respondents included homosexual persons and governmental entities that had enacted or enforced those protections.

Issue

Whether Colorado's Amendment 2, which withdraws and forbids specific legal protections for homosexual persons alone, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether the amendment bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.

Rule

If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, it ordinarily survives equal protection review if it bears a rational relation to a legitimate governmental end. But a law that identifies a single group by one trait, imposes a broad and undifferentiated disability on that group alone, and is so disconnected from the asserted justifications that it is explainable only by animus lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose and is invalid under the Equal Protection Clause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio adopts a constitutional amendment providing that no state agency, city, county, school district, or court may adopt or enforce any rule, ordinance, or policy under which people with tattoos may claim protected status or discrimination based on being tattooed. The amendment repeals existing local ordinances in Cleveland and Columbus that barred discrimination against tattooed persons in employment and housing.

A tattooed job applicant challenges the amendment under the Equal Protection Clause. Which is the strongest argument that the amendment is unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority's rule is that even under ordinary rational basis review, a law is invalid when it identifies a single group by one trait, withdraws and forbids specific legal protections for that group alone, and is so broad that it lacks a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. The defect is not that tattooed persons are a suspect class, nor that every repeal is invalid, but that the amendment makes one group a solitary class denied the ordinary ability to seek protection from discrimination.