Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Constitutional Law Keyed to Varat

View this case in different Casebooks

Constitutional Law Keyed to Chemerinsky Constitutional Law Keyed to Cohen Constitutional Law Keyed to Stone Constitutional Law Keyed to Choper Constitutional Law Keyed to Farber Constitutional Law Keyed to Feldman Constitutional Law Keyed to Gershman Constitutional Law Keyed to Shanor Constitutional Law Keyed to Barnett Constitutional Law Keyed to Levinson

Romer v. Evans

Citation:

517 U.S. 620, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996).

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their state constitution, prohibiting laws conveying protected status on the basis of “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.” Many municipalities had already passed local ordinances conveying protected status. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging Amendment 2 on Equal Protection grounds.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - What best explains the Court’s doctrinal posture in Romer—often described as “rational basis with bite”—as applied to Amendment 2’s statewide disability?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) It treated sexual orientation as a suspect class and silently applied strict scrutiny while naming it “rational basis.”

Incorrect. This is wrong because the Court did not declare suspect classification or apply strict scrutiny.

(B) It applied traditional rational basis because the amendment plausibly advanced uniformity and moral legislation.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the hypothesized interests could not rationally justify the amendment’s sweeping, status-focused disability.

(C) It used intermediate scrutiny triggered by political-process restructuring under Hunter and Seattle.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the majority did not invoke intermediate scrutiny or rest its holding on political-process doctrine.

(D) It invalidated a classification whose sheer breadth and status-targeting revealed impermissible animus, thus failing rational basis because the law’s means bore no rational relation to any legitimate end.

Correct! The Court judged the law’s extraordinary breadth—categorically disabling one class from seeking any protection—as evidence of impermissible animus, which defeats even deferential review because the means are irrational relative to any legitimate end. This is the Moreno/Cleburne line: when the structure of a law reveals status-based targeting, “rational basis” has teeth.

Q.2 - Why did the majority decline to ground its holding in either political-process theory or fundamental rights, despite the Colorado Supreme Court’s strict-scrutiny approach?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Because applying political-process theory would have required proof that LGBTQ+ persons are a “discrete and insular minority” under Footnote Four.

Incorrect. This is wrong because Footnote Four status was not made a prerequisite to resolve the case.

(B) Because the Court could dispose of the case on the narrower equal-protection ground that the amendment flunked even rational basis, avoiding escalation to heightened tiers and preserving institutional minimalism.

Correct! The Court embraced a minimalist path: striking the amendment under rational basis avoided expanding tiers or rights while signaling that even under the lowest review, animus-driven across-the-board exclusions are unconstitutional. This choice preserved doctrinal flexibility for future cases while invalidating Amendment 2 on narrow equal-protection grounds.

(C) Because fundamental-rights analysis was foreclosed by Bowers v. Hardwick, which mandated deference to all morality legislation.

Incorrect. This is wrong because Bowers did not compel deference to a measure that broadly disables a class from ordinary legal protections.

(D) Because political-process doctrine is limited to race-based measures and cannot apply to classifications based on sexual orientation.

Correct! This is wrong because political-process theory is not race-exclusive, even though the Court chose not to rely on it here.

Q.3 - Which characterization most precisely captures how Romer cabins the State’s asserted interests (uniformity, resource allocation, moral disapproval) within Equal Protection’s anti-class legislation principle?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The opinion treats “uniformity” and “morals” as facially legitimate but insufficient where the instrument is a across-the-board status disability that fences out a class from ordinary lawmaking, signaling pretext rather than a neutral allocation of regulatory discretion.

Correct! Romer recognizes that “uniformity” and moral regulation can be legitimate interests, but an instrument that categorically fences out a class from ordinary political recourse signals pretext and fails equal protection’s anti-class legislation principle. By focusing on the amendment’s structural overbreadth and status targeting, the Court found no rational connection to the proffered ends.

(B) The opinion declares moral disapproval never a legitimate interest for any classification, thereby abrogating the States’ police power.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the Court did not hold moral disapproval never legitimate; it held this particular enactment irrationally broad.

(C) The opinion accepts resource-allocation as a per se legitimate interest and requires only some conceivable relation between the interest and the amendment’s scope.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the Court refused to accept any-conceivable-basis when the measure’s structure revealed animus.

(D) The opinion adopts a balancing test that weighs dignitary harms against majoritarian preferences and invalidates the law when stigma outweighs popular will.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the opinion did not adopt a dignitary-harm balancing framework.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

Topic Video

Romer v. Evans

5m 39s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

Equal Protection

Topic Refresher Course

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Romer v. Evans