14th Amendment Protects- LGBTQ Equality

Question 1

Important Precedent

Answer 1

Bowers- this is a case where the court upheld sodomy laws

Question 2

Romer v. Evans- 1996

facts

Answer 2

the amendment to colorado’s const repeals ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. the amendment prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level designed to protect the LGBTQ community.
* the state argued that this put LGBTQ in teh same position as others.

Question 3

Romer- Rule and Rationale

Answer 3

This amendment violates EP.

Does not pass rationale basis. it imposes a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single group,
its bredth is doscontinious with the reasons offered.

Question 3

Romer- Dissent

Answer 3

THOMAS WAS PART OF THE DISSENT HERE!!!

Dissent argued that this amendment was a modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual norms.
* he says that oral opposition to homosexuality isnt in the same class of reprehensibility as racial or religious bias.
* if we look at bowers, then we can see that the rights of homosexuals is not in the const.

Question 4

Lawrence v. Texas (2003) - facst

Answer 4

Texas law makes intercourse between same-sex couples illegal. police officers entered lawrences home and witnessed him having anal sex with another men. they were arrested and charged under the texas anti sodomy laws which prohibited sodomy bt members of the same sex.

Question 5

Lawerence v. Texas- Issues addressed

Answer 5

1. should bowers be overruled?
2. whether making identical behavior either criminalized or not criminalized depending solely on the gender of the couple violates EP?
3. whether convictions for adult consensual intimacy in teh home violate liberty and privacy interests protected by DP?

Question 6

Lawrence- rules

Answer 6

1. bowers is overturned as it demeans the lives of homosexual individuals.
2. due process protects private conduct in the home.
3. this law serves no legitimate state interest which can justify such an intrusion.

Question 7

Lawrence Dissent

Answer 7

THOMAS!!! He joins scalia and also authors his own.

scalia (joined by thom)- the texas law has a rational basis- that certain forms of sexual behavior is immoral. also this is opening the door to same sex marriage. 2 BAD BROTHER.

thomas dissent: no right to privacy in teh const- he mentions griswold to make the same point.

Question 7

Lawrence- Brief on O’Connor concurrence

Answer 7

she did not want to overturn bowers and she agreed it was an EP violation but does not agree it was sdp component.
* she likes EP because under EP sodomy could be banned for all persons which is what she seemed to be into. it would have passed if banned for all and this was an ep question.

Question 8

Lawrence- Why DP and not EP?

Answer 8

The law at issue in Lawrence applied to only homsexual sodomy, not heterosexual sodomy, had the court used ep, it would have suggested that texas could still ban sodomy for both same sex and opposite sex couples, as long as it was pplied equally. Instead, by using due process and focusing on personal liberty, the court effectively decriminalized sodomy across the board, for both same sex and opposite sex couples.

Question 9

Obergefell (2015)

Answer 9

Facts: petitioners are same sex couple who were denied the right to marry.

Question 10

Obergefell- Majority and Reasoning

Answer 10

Kagan and Sotomayor

• right to due process extends to certain personal chocies central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.
• the court. must use reasoned judgment in identifying fundamental rights and interests.
• the founder did not presume to knoa ll the freedoms of the people.
• remember obergefell was also EP- Kennedy did not go ham on this though. this was an ep problem too bc heterosexual couples could get married.
• people have the right to marry! DP/

Question 11

Obergefell Dissent

Answer 11

Roberts, Thomas, Alito.

roberts, scalia and thomas- thsi court is not a legilsature, by the sound of the majority, polygamy will be legal next!

scalia + thomas- this is a threat to democracy!!

alito + scalia + thomas- the const is silent on same- sex marriage, thus should be left to the states.

Question 12

Bostock (2020) - facts + rule

Answer 12

facts- people were getting fired left and right for their sexuality.

rule- title vii protects homosexual and transgender individuals from workplace discrimination. but there are some exceptions!!!

Question 13

Bostock 2020- majoirty + rationale

Answer 13

Gorsuch, cjr, kagan, and Sotomayor

Gorsuch on sex- if you tell a man that he can arry a woman but not a man, of if you tell a women that she can marry a woman and not a man- then that is talking about sex.
* he simplifies it by saying that there is no way around this- if you are talking about sex then you are talking about sex.

HOWEVER THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS!! Next card

Question 14

Bostock - Exceptions to sex discrimination

Answer 14

1. Title VII exceptions for religion- religious orgs can discriminate on the basis of religion.
2. ministerial exception rule- First Amendment-based rule that prevents courts from interfering in employment decisions made by religious institutions about their “ministerial” employees—those who play a key role in promoting the institution’s religious mission. This rule essentially allows religious organizations to hire and fire individuals in certain positions without being subject to federal anti-discrimination laws.
3. when RFRA is involved- there is a FED RFRA which says that the govt cannot substantially burden the practice of religion unless it has a compelling gov interest and uses the least restrictive means. this could offer a defense for religious organizations against certain claims of discrimination under title vii.

Question 15

Pavan

Answer 15

facts- state law that did not allow for same sex couples to have both names on birth certificate.
majority- CJR, Sotomayor, Kagan- this violated EP.
Dissent- thomas, alito, gorsuch.

Question 16

Munoz (2024)

Answer 16

Facts- here, we have one US citizen, and one is not. The US citizen wants the court to find that her non-citizen husband can be a citizen. argued under the 5th amendment right to marriage.
Analysis- The court focused on how this was an immigration question and not a marriage one. and the goct has the power to set the terms and exclusions for non citizens.

dissent- they quote obergefell that the right to marry is fundamental.