Romer v. Evans [1996]
517 U.S. 620 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States
Issue
Whether a state constitutional amendment that bars protections for gays and lesbians violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Held
Yes; it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Exam use
Summary
Whether a state constitutional amendment that bars protections for gays and lesbians violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Facts
Issue
Whether a state constitutional amendment that bars protections for gays and lesbians violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Held
Yes; it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Ratio Decidendi
A state law that singles out a class for disparate treatment without a rational basis violates equal protection.
Reasoning
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Romer v. Evans (517 U.S. 620) strengthens a State and Local Government Law answer because the case reflects the principle that A state law that singles out a class for disparate treatment without a rational basis violates equal protection. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether a state constitutional amendment that bars protections for gays and lesbians violates the Equal Protection Clause. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
- state-and-local-government-law
- State and Local Government Law
- State constitutional amendment and equal protection
- case authority
- exam application
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.