Key Takeaways

1. Romer v. Evans (1996) was the first United States Supreme Court decision to strike down a law targeting homosexuals for adverse treatment, holding that Colorado’s Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court held that laws motivated by animosity toward a particular group, and which impose broad disabilities on that group, cannot survive even the most deferential rational basis review.
3. Romer v. Evans provided foundational legal reasoning for later landmark cases advancing LGBTQ+ rights, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Introduction to Romer v. Evans

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), stands as a cornerstone in the history of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Decided by the Supreme Court on May 20, 1996, the case addressed whether a state constitutional amendment could lawfully prohibit protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court’s decision marked a pivotal moment, not only for the gay and lesbian civil rights movement, but also for constitutional law regarding the Equal Protection Clause.

The case arose in Colorado, where voters passed Amendment 2 to the state constitution in 1992. This amendment prevented any city, town, or county in Colorado from enacting laws or policies that would protect individuals from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." The amendment was immediately challenged in court by a group of individuals and municipalities, arguing that it violated their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, struck down Amendment 2. The majority found that the amendment lacked a rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose and was instead motivated by animosity toward the targeted group. This guide will explore the background, legal arguments, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, dissenting opinions, and the lasting impact of Romer v. Evans.

Background of the Case

The Passage of Colorado’s Amendment 2

In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2, which stated:

"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, 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 of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination."

The measure was a direct response to local ordinances in cities such as Denver, Boulder, and Aspen, which had enacted protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Proponents of Amendment 2 argued that it prevented "special rights" for homosexual individuals, while opponents saw it as a sweeping deprivation of equal protection for a targeted group.

Legal Challenge and Lower Court Decisions

Shortly after Amendment 2’s passage, a coalition of individuals, including those directly affected by the amendment, along with several Colorado municipalities, filed suit to block its enforcement. The lead plaintiff was Richard G. Evans, a Denver city employee. The plaintiffs argued that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The trial court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the amendment from taking effect. After a trial, the court permanently enjoined enforcement, finding that the amendment failed even rational basis review. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Amendment 2 infringed upon the fundamental right of homosexual individuals to participate equally in the political process.

The State of Colorado appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. For the official Supreme Court opinion and related documents, see Oyez, Justia, and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

Legal Issues Presented

The Equal Protection Clause

At the heart of Romer v. Evans was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The clause requires that states treat individuals in similar situations equally under the law, unless there is a sufficient justification for different treatment.

The key question was whether Amendment 2’s denial of anti-discrimination protections to homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual individuals was constitutionally permissible.

Levels of Judicial Scrutiny

In evaluating equal protection claims, the Supreme Court applies different levels of scrutiny:

• Rational Basis Review: The most deferential standard, requiring that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
• Intermediate Scrutiny: Requires that the law further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.
• Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard, applied to laws affecting fundamental rights or suspect classifications, requiring that the law be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

In Romer, the Supreme Court applied rational basis review, as homosexuals were not recognized as a suspect or quasi-suspect class at the time. The central issue was whether Amendment 2 could survive even this minimal level of scrutiny.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners (State of Colorado)

The State of Colorado, defending Amendment 2, argued that:

• The amendment did not bar homosexual individuals from seeking protection through the political process; it merely prevented the state and its subdivisions from granting "special rights" based on sexual orientation.
• The measure was a legitimate attempt to preserve traditional moral values and prevent the creation of a protected class based on sexual orientation.
• The state asserted that the amendment was rationally related to these legitimate state interests.

Respondents (Evans et al.)

The respondents, including homosexual individuals and supportive municipalities, argued that:

• Amendment 2 imposed a broad and unprecedented disability on a single group, denying them the ability to seek legal protections available to others.
• The amendment was motivated by animosity and prejudice, not by any legitimate governmental purpose.
• By targeting a specific group and withdrawing legal protections, Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court on October 10, 1995. For transcripts and audio, visit Oyez’s case page.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Majority Opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The Court held that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Key Reasoning

• Broad Disability: The Court noted that Amendment 2 "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board." The amendment did not merely remove specific laws but preemptively barred all levels of government in Colorado from ever enacting protections for homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual individuals.
• Lack of Legitimate Purpose: The state’s proffered justifications—preserving traditional values and preventing "special rights"—were found inadequate. The Court stated that the amendment was so broad and undifferentiated that it could not be explained by any legitimate government interest.
• Animus as an Invalid Basis: The majority emphasized that laws born of animosity toward a particular group are not constitutionally permissible. The Court cited previous cases, such as Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, to support the principle that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Notable Excerpt

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

The full opinion can be found at Cornell Law School.

The Dissenting Opinion

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, filed a vigorous dissent. The dissenters argued that:

• Amendment 2 merely prevented the creation of special legal protections for homosexuals, not the withdrawal of basic rights.
• The majority’s reasoning improperly elevated sexual orientation to a protected status not recognized by the Constitution.
• The amendment was a legitimate expression of moral disapproval, which the state was entitled to enact.

Justice Scalia contended that the majority’s decision was an improper interference with the democratic process and traditional moral choices.

Impact and Legacy of Romer v. Evans

Immediate Effects

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated Amendment 2, ensuring that Colorado’s local governments could continue to enact and enforce anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals. The ruling sent a clear message that laws motivated by animosity toward a particular group would not be tolerated under the Constitution.

Precedent for Future LGBTQ+ Rights Cases

Romer v. Evans is frequently cited as a foundational case in the development of constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. It established several key principles:

• Animus Doctrine: The decision clarified that laws motivated by animosity toward a particular group are presumptively invalid under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Rational Basis with Bite: While the Court purported to apply rational basis review, it scrutinized the state’s justifications more closely than in typical cases, a phenomenon sometimes called "rational basis with bite."

These doctrines paved the way for later landmark decisions, including:

• Lawrence v. Texas (2003): The Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex conduct, citing Romer’s reasoning about animus and equal protection. See the official opinion.
• United States v. Windsor (2013): The Court invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, again referencing the animus doctrine from Romer.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, drawing on Romer’s equal protection analysis. Read the full decision.

Influence on State and Local Laws

After Romer, many states and municipalities revisited their anti-discrimination laws. The decision emboldened advocates seeking to expand civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. It also led to increased litigation challenging discriminatory statutes and policies nationwide.

Academic and Social Commentary

Legal scholars have debated Romer’s significance. Some view it as a cautious, incremental step toward LGBTQ+ equality, while others see it as a bold assertion of constitutional principles. Socially, the case marked a turning point in public discourse, signaling that discrimination against gays and lesbians would not be tolerated under the law.

For further reading, see Wikipedia’s summary.

Analysis: Legal and Practical Implications

The Animus Doctrine

One of the most enduring contributions of Romer v. Evans is the articulation of the animus doctrine. The Court made clear that legislation motivated by a "bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group" cannot be justified under the Constitution. This principle has been invoked in numerous subsequent cases involving not only LGBTQ+ rights but also other groups facing discrimination.

Rational Basis with Bite

Romer is often cited as an example of the Supreme Court applying a more searching form of rational basis review. While the Court did not recognize homosexuals as a suspect class, it nonetheless scrutinized the state’s justifications more rigorously than in other equal protection cases. This approach, sometimes called "rational basis with bite," has influenced the development of constitutional law, especially in cases involving marginalized groups.

Political Process and Equal Participation

The Court’s decision underscored the importance of equal participation in the political process. Amendment 2 effectively precluded a targeted group from seeking legal protections through ordinary political channels—a deprivation the Court found constitutionally unacceptable.

Ongoing Relevance

Romer v. Evans remains highly relevant, both as a legal precedent and as a symbol of the ongoing struggle for civil rights. Its reasoning continues to inform debates over the scope of equal protection and the permissible limits of majority rule in a constitutional democracy.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was Amendment 2, and why was it controversial?

Amendment 2 was a Colorado state constitutional amendment passed in 1992 that prohibited any state or local government entity from enacting laws or policies protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. It was controversial because it singled out homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual individuals for adverse treatment, effectively denying them the ability to seek legal protection from discrimination.

Did Romer v. Evans establish sexual orientation as a suspect class?

No, the Supreme Court did not recognize sexual orientation as a suspect or quasi-suspect class in Romer v. Evans. The Court applied rational basis review but found that the amendment failed even this most deferential standard due to its broad scope and improper motivations.

How did Romer v. Evans influence later Supreme Court decisions?

Romer v. Evans provided the legal framework and reasoning for later landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges. The animus doctrine and the concept of rational basis with bite became central to the Court’s approach in scrutinizing laws that targeted LGBTQ+ individuals.

Where can I read the full text of the Romer v. Evans decision?

The full text of the decision is available from several official sources: - Oyez - Justia - Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute

Conclusion

Romer v. Evans is a landmark Supreme Court decision that fundamentally altered the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. By striking down Colorado’s Amendment 2, the Court affirmed that the Constitution does not permit laws motivated by animosity toward a particular group, even under the most deferential standard of review. The case’s reasoning has echoed through subsequent decisions, shaping the ongoing evolution of civil rights jurisprudence.

For attorneys and legal researchers seeking deeper insights into Romer v. Evans and related topics, we recommend Counsel Stack’s advanced legal research tools at www.counselstack.com.

Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Romer v. Evans and its legal significance. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. There are important nuances to the case and its interpretation. For specific legal questions, consult a qualified attorney or conduct thorough research using official sources.