Case Brief- Romer v. Evans PDF

Preview

Summary

Mandatory case brief ...

Description

!1 POLS 341 Professor Settle November 12, 2017 Case Brief Title and Citation: Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 1996 U.S. Facts of the Case: Colorado passed a constitutional amendment (Amendment 2) that repealed all prior provisions that designated homosexuals as protected class for Equal Protection purposes. Petitioner (Romer) was denied housing because of his sexual orientation and brought a claim against Respondent (Evans) under the municipal code. The Respondent defended citing the newly enacted state law. The law (Amendment 2) took away protections from discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver. The law made it impossible for the government to provide protection toward gays, lesbians, and bisexual persons without an additional amendment. Legal Question(s): By singling out a group and denying them the protected class status, has the Colorado amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution? Holding: Yes. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that a law declaring that it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than all others to seek aid from the government is a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Amendment 2 of the Colorado Constitution classifies homosexuals to make them unequal to everyone else and does not further a proper legislative end. Opinion: Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy notes that the Colorado constitutional amendment targeting homosexuals based upon animosity lacked a rational relation to any legitimate governmental purpose. Amendment 2 failed to have any rational relationship to a legitimate state interests; therefore, it failed rational basis review. Furthermore, Kennedy claimed that, “It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort.” The majority found that, "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” The Court inferred that the passage of Amendment 2 was born out of desire to harm a politically unpopular group. Likewise, the Court added that the if constitutional conception of “equal protection of laws” means anything, it must at the very least mean that a desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate state/governmental interests.

!2 Separate Opinion and Opinions: No concurring opinion. Justice Scalia wrote the dissent, and was joined by, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Scalia claimed that Amendment 2 did not deprive anyone of the "protection [afforded by] general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings.” Scalia asserted that Amendment 2 provided that homosexuals cannot as readily and easily as others obtain preferential treatment under the laws. Furthermore, Justice Scalia provided that Amendment 2 did not directly target a politically unpopular group, and that gay and lesbian people have much political power. Likewise, homosexual persons do not need help from the power of the court to ensure protection. In addition, Scalia mentioned that Amendment 2 is neither prejudice nor hatred toward a particular group, rather, it is merely an expression of moral disproval. Because of this, the voters of Colorado—under rational basis—are allowed to express their genuine moral disproval of gay or lesbian people. The dissent concludes that the people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Comments and Evaluation: After careful analysis of the opinion, it is easy to understand the majority's conclusion in Romer v. Evans. Justice Kennedy notes that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, homosexual persons should not be disadvantaged when it came to finding housing in the Colorado area. I found it surprising that in his dissent, Scalia concluded that the amendment to Colorado’s Constitution did not seem to violate the Equal Protection Clause. It was extremely interesting to read Scalia’s reasons as to why the amendment should be constitutional, considering the fact that the amendment was neither prejudice nor hatred toward a particular group. Instead, the amendment served as merely an expression of moral disproval toward a particular group of people in the community. This case will not be overturned in the future, considering the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment protects persons from this type of litigation....