Romer V EvansEdit

Romer v. Evans is a landmark 1996 Supreme Court decision rooted in the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case challenged Colorado’s Amendment 2, a ballot initiative passed by voters that barred protected status for individuals based on their sexual orientation. The Court struck the amendment down as unconstitutional, holding that it singled out a particular group for disfavored legal treatment and failed to serve any legitimate public interest. The ruling is frequently discussed in debates over the scope of state democracy, the limits of legislative power, and the role of the judiciary in protecting individual rights.

Background

Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 in the early 1990s in a political climate intensely focused on social norms and public policy. The measure stated that no one could be designated as a protected class on the basis of sexual orientation, effectively limiting anti-discrimination protections and other constitutional or statutory remedies for gay and lesbian residents. Proponents argued the amendment preserved traditional moral norms and constrained the expansion of special rights in state and local policy. Opponents contended that the amendment targeted a specific group and undermined basic equal protection under the law.

The constitutional question centered on whether Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by singling out homosexuals for disfavored treatment. The suits argued that the amendment did not pursue any legitimate governmental objective in a manner substantially related to that objective, and that it reflected hostility toward a disfavored class rather than a legitimate policy aim.

The legal questions

What level of scrutiny did the court apply to a classification based on sexual orientation when evaluating a state amendment that forbade protected status? While the expected framework of review is a topic of ongoing debate, Romer v. Evans is often cited for its approach to classifications that are not anchored in a traditional, neutral governmental objective.
Does a measure that targets a disfavored group for exclusion from protections pass constitutional muster if it is not tied to a conventional, demonstrably legitimate objective? The case invites examination of whether the law’s stated purpose is genuine or whether it primarily signals disapproval toward a class of people.

Within the opinion, the Court articulated that while it did not declare sexual orientation a suspect class, the amendment failed to have any rational basis that could justify such sweeping exclusion. The Court emphasized that the measure could not be explained by a legitimate governmental purpose and instead appeared to reflect hostility toward a particular group.

Decision and reasoning

The Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause. The majority rejected arguments that the measure served a legitimate public interest, noting that the amendment’s practical effect was to deny gay and lesbian Coloradans basic protections and to penalize them for their identity. The Court described the amendment as a categorical exclusion that could not be justified by public policy or interest, and it concluded that the measure was not reasonably related to any legitimate state objective. In short, the measure was unconstitutional because it singled out a group for disfavored treatment without a rational basis.

Dissenting opinions argued for greater deference to the democratic process and to state and local decision-making on questions of public policy. They contended that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of the electorate or the democratically elected branches when the policy choices are framed as moral or social questions. From a right-of-center perspective that emphasizes federalism and the primacy of legislative deliberation in public policy, these arguments stress the importance of allowing voters and their representatives to determine policy in the ordinary course, while recognizing ongoing constitutional constraints.

Controversies and debates

The role of the judiciary in policing the boundaries between democratic policy choices and fundamental rights. Critics from a conservative vantage point often argue that courts should be more cautious about overturning elections or ballot initiatives, particularly when the policy concerns a broad moral or social issue rather than a traditional discrete right.
The use of equal protection scrutiny in cases involving sexual orientation. Romer v. Evans is frequently discussed in dialogue about how the Court interprets classifications that are not historically treated as suspect but nonetheless target a marginalized group. Supporters of a more restrained approach to judicial review argue that the decision represents judicial activism, while proponents view it as a necessary guardrail against laws that institutionalize discrimination.
The tension between public morality, social norms, and the protections afforded by the Constitution. From a viewpoint that prioritizes the electorate’s policy choices, some critics claim that the decision may overstep the will of voters who seek to define the scope of protections in a given polity.

From the right-of-center angle, commentators often frame Romer v. Evans as a case that highlights both the limits of judicial power to override democratic decisions and the enduring importance of a textual and historical reading of the Constitution. They may argue that the ruling contributed to subsequent debates about when equal protection demands invalidate democratically enacted measures and when it should be left to electorates to resolve moral questions, all while maintaining that rights protections should be balanced with deference to the political process.

Aftermath and legacy

Romer v. Evans affected later discussions of how courts interpret equal protection, especially in cases involving sexual orientation. Although it did not declare sexual orientation a suspect class, it underscored that laws singling out a disfavored group require careful justification beyond mere moral disapproval.
The decision is frequently cited in debates about judicial restraint versus judicial intervention, and it is used in arguments about how far courts should go in reviewing ballot measures and state policies that touch on questions of sexual orientation and civil rights.
The case sits alongside later developments in constitutional law, including decisions that expanded or clarified protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in other domains, such as marriage rights and anti-discrimination enforcement, and it is often contrasted with cases that emphasize state legislative prerogatives and the role of ordinary political processes.

In the broader arc of constitutional law, Romer v. Evans remains a touchstone for discussions about equal protection, the limits of ballot initiatives, and the enduring debate over how to reconcile democratic policymaking with the protection of individual rights.