How this document has been cited

—invalidating Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited the state and local governments from passing laws to protect persons from discrimination based on their sexual orientation
The Court explained that in addition to merely repealing state and local laws, the amendment "prohibits all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class...."
- in Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State, 2005 and 74 similar citations
The Court has also issued decisions addressing laws that draw distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual conduct or homosexuals and heterosexuals as a class
- in Lawson v. Kelly, 2014 and 66 similar citations
Romer held that an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would have "prohibit [ed] all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect" homosexuals violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Under federal rational-basis review, "we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end."
I] fa law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end
- in Green v. City of Tucson, 2003 and 628 similar citations
In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous
The most obvious limit is that the Government's interest must be "legitimate," and "a bare... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."
- in Pena Martinez v. USDHHS, 2020 and 136 similar citations
However, "[t] he Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons."
—defining an "invidious" classification as "a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake... inexplicable by anything but animus towards the class it affects
- in Common Cause v. Rucho, 2018 and 36 similar citations

Cited by

280 Kan. 275 - Kan: Supreme Court 2005
368 F. Supp. 2d 980 - Dist. Court, D. Nebraska 2005
128 F. 3d 289 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1997
240 F. 3d 944 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2001
106 F. 3d 1420 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997
Tenn: Court of Appeals 2014
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2006
455 F. 3d 859 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2006
895 A. 2d 453 - NJ: Appellate Div. 2006
83 P. 3d 229 - Kan: Court of Appeals 2004