Citation network
Romer Vs. Evans
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1996
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 620 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Romer, Governor of Colorado, Et Al. V. EvansSearch
-
bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e. g., Heller v. DoeSearch
-
for the Colorado Bar Association et al. by Stephen V. BomseSearch
-
because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. Evans v. RomerSearch
-
Evans I). To reach this conclusion, the state court relied on our voting rights cases, e. g., Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
and on our precedents involving discriminatory restructuring of governmental decisionmaking, see, e. g., Hunter v. EricksonSearch
-
Washington v. SeattleSearch
-
Hurley v. Irish-AmericanSearch
-
so far been given the protection of heightened equal protection scrutiny under our cases. See, e. g., J. E. B. v. AlabamaSearch
-
for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e. g., Heller v. DoeSearch
-
unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous. See New Orleans v. DukesSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. NewSearch
-
Kotch v. BoardSearch
-
are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. ColemanSearch
-
U. S. 629 , 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 , 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
U. S. 356 , 369 (1886)). Davis v. BeasonSearch
-
held that persons advocating a certain practice may be denied the right to vote, it is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. OhioSearch
-
because of their status, its ruling could not stand without surviving strict scrutiny, a most doubtful outcome. Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
cf. United States v. BrownSearch
-
may be denied the right to vote, its holding is not implicated by our decision and is unexceptionable. See Richardson v. RamirezSearch
-
Department of Agriculture v. MorenoSearch
-
a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, Kadrmas v. DickinsonSearch
-
disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. HardwickSearch
-
In Bowers v. HardwickSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial