Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause
E390637
Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause is the central constitutional holding in Romer v. Evans, where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado measure that barred legal protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3830422 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause Context triple: [Romer v. Evans, holding, Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause]
-
A.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
B.
Wolf v. Colorado
Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
-
C.
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is a key constitutional provision that prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, forming the basis for many landmark civil rights decisions in the United States.
-
D.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, on narrow grounds, that Colorado officials had shown unconstitutional hostility toward a baker’s religious beliefs when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against his refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
-
E.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause Target entity description: Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause is the central constitutional holding in Romer v. Evans, where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado measure that barred legal protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
-
A.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
B.
Wolf v. Colorado
Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
-
C.
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is a key constitutional provision that prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, forming the basis for many landmark civil rights decisions in the United States.
-
D.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, on narrow grounds, that Colorado officials had shown unconstitutional hostility toward a baker’s religious beliefs when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against his refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
-
E.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States constitutional law principle
ⓘ
constitutional holding ⓘ legal doctrine ⓘ |
| announcedInCase | Romer v. Evans ⓘ |
| appliesTo | Colorado Amendment 2 ⓘ |
| articulatedBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Anthony Kennedy
|
| basedOn |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
|
| branchOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| centralHoldingOf | Romer v. Evans ⓘ |
| citedIn |
cases challenging laws motivated by animus
ⓘ
subsequent LGBT rights litigation ⓘ |
| clarifies | scope of equal protection for sexual minorities ⓘ |
| constitutionalLevel | federal constitutional law ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| decisionDate | 1996 ⓘ |
| geographicScope |
Colorado
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Colorado
|
| heldByCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| historicalContext | 1990s LGBT rights backlash ⓘ |
| influenced |
doctrine on laws motivated by animus
ⓘ
later equal protection jurisprudence on sexual orientation ⓘ |
| involves |
local antidiscrimination ordinances
ⓘ
state constitutional amendment ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalEffect |
invalidated Colorado Amendment 2
ⓘ
prohibits states from singling out gay, lesbian, and bisexual people for broad legal disabilities ⓘ |
| limits | state power to withdraw antidiscrimination protections from a targeted group ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionAuthor |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Anthony Kennedy
|
| opposedByDissent |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Clarence Thomas
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
|
| protects |
bisexual people
ⓘ
gay people ⓘ lesbian people ⓘ |
| reasoningFeature |
law failed even rational basis review
ⓘ
law imposed a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group ⓘ law lacked a legitimate governmental purpose ⓘ law was born of animosity toward a politically unpopular group ⓘ |
| reasoningStandard | rational basis review ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
LGBT rights in the United States
ⓘ
civil rights law ⓘ sexual orientation discrimination ⓘ |
| sourceCaseCitation |
Romer v. Evans
ⓘ
surface form:
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
|
| supportsPrinciple |
bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate governmental interest
ⓘ
government may not make a class of persons strangers to its laws ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause Description of subject: Colorado Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause is the central constitutional holding in Romer v. Evans, where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado measure that barred legal protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.