Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 518 U.S. 1001 (1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 518 U.S. 1001 (1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“hose persons who fall within the- orbit of legislation concerning sexual orientation are so affected not because of their orientation but rather by their conduct which identifies them as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual”
17 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management (ctd, 2012-07-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management
D. Conn. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
hose persons who fall within the- orbit of legislation concerning sexual orientation are so affected not because of their orientation but rather by their conduct which identifies them as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual
discussed Cited "see" Spies v. Voinovich
6th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati 54 F.3d 261, 265 (6th Cir. 1995), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 518 U.S. 1001 , 116 S.Ct. 2519 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Polaris Amphitheater Concerts, Inc. v. City of Westerville
6th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 54 F.3d 261, 271 (6th Cir.1995), vacated on other grounds, 518 U.S. 1001 , 116 S.Ct. 2519 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1996) (vagueness challenge to ordinance was mooted by amendment deleting the language in question); United Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 213 , 104 S.Ct. 1020, 1024 , 79 L.Ed.2d 249 (1984) (equal protection challenge was mooted by *508 amendment to ordinance deleting one-year residency requirement).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ol v. Rl
Mo. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Equality Found, of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 860 F.Supp. 417, 426 (S.D.Ohio 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 54 F.3d 261 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted and vacated by 518 U.S. 1001 , 116 S.Ct. 2519 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O. L. v. R. L.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Equality Found, of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 860 F.Supp. 417, 426 (S.D.Ohio 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 54 F.3d 261 (6th Cir.1995), cert, granted and vacated by 518 U.S. 1001 , 116 S.Ct. 2519 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc.
v.
City of Cincinnati
No. 95-239.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 17, 1996.
518 U.S. 1001
Scalia.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 58%
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)

Lead Opinion

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996).

Dissent

Justice Scalia,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

I dissent from the decision to remand this case in light of Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996). Romer involved a state constitutional amendment prohibiting special protection for homosexuals. The consequence of its holding is that homosexuals in a city (or other electoral subunit) that wishes to accord them special protection cannot be compelled to achieve a state constitutional amendment in order to have the benefit of that democratic preference. The present case, by contrast, involves a determination by what appears to be the lowest electoral subunit that it does not wish to accord homosexuals special protection. It can make that determination effective, of course, only by instructing its departments and agencies to obey it — which is what the Cincinnati Charter Amendment does. Thus, the consequence of holding this provision unconstitutional would be that nowhere in the country may the people decide, in democratic fashion, not to accord special protection to homosexuals. Unelected heads of city departments and agencies, who are in other respects (as democratic theory requires) subject to the control of the people, must, where special protection for homosexuals are concerned, be permitted to do what they please. This is such an absurd proposition that Romer, which did not involve the issue, cannot possibly be thought to have embraced it.

[*1002] I would deny certiorari in this case, or else set the case for argument to decide for ourselves the ultra-Romer issue that it presents.