Statements (72)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:aftermath |
Influenced state and federal legislation
|
| gptkbp:amended_by |
gptkb:Colorado_Amendment_2
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
gptkb:Paul_M._Smith
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed in law schools and legal studies
Used as a case study in civil rights education |
| gptkbp:case_number |
94-1039
Originated from a Colorado state court case |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Invalidated discriminatory laws against LGBTQ individuals |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Landmark case in U. S. legal history
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case
|
| gptkbp:community_impact |
Increased visibility for LGBTQ issues
|
| gptkbp:cultural_impact |
Shifted cultural perceptions of LGBTQ rights
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:1996
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States May 20, 1996 |
| gptkbp:dissent_concludes |
No violation of the Equal Protection Clause
|
| gptkbp:dissent_highlights |
Potential for backlash against gay rights
|
| gptkbp:dissent_references |
gptkb:Bowers_v._Hardwick
|
| gptkbp:dissent_warns |
Judicial overreach
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Justice_Scalia States' rights Judicial restraint Justice Thomas joined Scalia's dissent Scalia argued for state rights Amendment 2 as a political decision Legislative process should address issues Majority's interpretation of discrimination No fundamental right to homosexual conduct |
| gptkbp:economic_policy |
Influenced public policy on LGBTQ rights
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of the gay rights movement
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Romer v. Evans
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Increased legal protections for sexual orientation
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
Previous civil rights cases
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:John_Romer
Colorado state government |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:517_U._S._620
Numerous subsequent court cases |
| gptkbp:judges |
Justices O' Connor, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court's power to review state laws
Examined the role of the judiciary in civil rights |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Judicial activism
Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Influenced state-level anti-discrimination laws Reinforced the importance of equal rights Significant legal victory for LGBTQ community |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Equal Protection Clause
Equal protection under the law Focused on discrimination and equal rights Sparked debates on state vs. federal rights |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Expanded civil rights protections
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Lambda_Legal_Defense_and_Education_Fund
Constitutional law analysis |
| gptkbp:opinion_written_by |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down Amendment 2
Unconstitutional discrimination against homosexuals |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set a precedent for future cases
Heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination Subsequent LGBT rights cases |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
Struck down Amendment 2 |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed reactions from various groups
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Obergefell_v._Hodges
gptkb:Lawrence_v._Texas gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor |
| gptkbp:related_to |
LGBT rights
|
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Extensively discussed in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|