Romer v. Evans

1996-06-03

Headline: Colorado amendment barring laws that protect gay and lesbian people is struck down, restoring the ability of governments to adopt anti‑discrimination protections for sexual orientation in Colorado.

Holding: The Court held that Colorado's Amendment 2 violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it singles out gay and lesbian people for a broad disability and lacks a rational relation to legitimate state interests.

Real World Impact:

Invalidates Colorado Amendment 2 and prevents its enforcement.
Keeps local and state anti‑discrimination protections for sexual orientation available.
Affirms that laws singling out gay people need a legitimate state reason.

Topics: LGBT rights, equal protection, anti-discrimination laws, state constitutional amendments

Summary

Background

Amendment 2 was a change to the Colorado Constitution adopted by voters in 1992. It removed and forbade government protections for people because of homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships. Local ordinances in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver that had banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were targeted. Gay and lesbian individuals and the cities that adopted those ordinances sued, asking courts to block enforcement of the amendment. The Colorado trial court and the Colorado Supreme Court blocked the amendment, and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Amendment 2 was compatible with the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection. The majority explained that the amendment singled out gay and lesbian people for a broad, unique disability by barring them from seeking specific legal protections. That singling out was unprecedented and not shown to serve any legitimate state purpose. The Court found that the amendment’s breadth and lack of connection to valid goals suggested it was driven by hostility toward the group, and therefore it failed even the ordinary rational‑basis review.

Real world impact

The Court held Amendment 2 invalid and affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's judgment. The decision prevents the amendment from being enforced and leaves open the ability of state and local governments to enact or maintain anti‑discrimination protections for sexual orientation. The ruling resolves the immediate dispute over the Colorado amendment at the highest level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia dissented, arguing the amendment was a legitimate democratic choice that merely denied special protections and that established precedent supported the State’s action. He criticized the majority for creating a novel constitutional rule.