Facts of the Case
Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.
Questions
Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Conclusions
-
Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."
Romer v. Evans: The Supreme Court's Assault on Popular Sovereignty
Civil Rights Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
Four years ago, the voters of Colorado enacted by referendum a state constitutional amendment (known...
History and Recent Development in Same-Sex Marriage Litigation
Engage Volume 15, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive national survey...
Whether There is a Constitutional Right to Die
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 2, Spring 1997
The existence of a constitutional right to die is currently under consideration by the United...
Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Is Traditional Marriage Unconstitutional?
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Note from the Editor: This article and the article in this issue by Mark Strasser...
Same-Sex Marriage: A Variety of Perspectives on United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry
Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
Decoding the Constitutional Challenges to Traditional Marriage By John C. Eastman* On December 7, 2012,...
Supreme Court Roundup: A Review of October Term 1995
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 2, Spring 1997
In the last issue of this newsletter, we examined in detail the major federalist decision...
Protecting Economic Liberty in the Federal Courts: Theory, Precedent, Practice
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
The 14th Amendment meaningfully protects economic liberty. While this protection was originally housed in the...
Perry, Same-Sex Marriage, and Federal Constitutional Guarantees
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Note from the Editor: This article and the article in this issue by George W....
The President's Immigration Travel Ban: What Trump v. Hawaii Has to Say About Stating a Claim Under the Establishment Clause
It is little appreciated that the United States Supreme Court’s decision today in Trump v. Hawaii,...
Unleashed and Unbound: Living Textualism in Bostock v. Clayton County
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
How the Founders’ Natural Law Theory Illuminates the Original Meaning of Free Exercise
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court will consider whether Philadelphia’s 2018 policy...
Why Nineteenth Century Bans on “Sectarian” Aid Are Facially Unconstitutional: New Evidence on Plain Meaning
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: This article presents original research on the nineteenth century meaning of...
Lions Under the Bureaucracy: Defending Judicial Deference to the Administrative State
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
A Review of: Law’s Abnegation: From Law’s Empire to the Administrative State, by Adrian Vermeule ...
Blaine Amendments and the Unconstitutionality of Excluding Religious Options From School Choice Programs
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the school choice movement and how Blaine Amendments...