Animus: When lawmakers let bias make law
In constitutional law, animus refers to a government action motivated by hostility, prejudice, or dislike toward a particular class of people rather than a legitimate public interest. In equal-protection jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that laws born of animus — laws that single out a group to disadvantage them — are inherently unconstitutional.
The landmark case Romer v. Evans (1996) illustrates this principle. There, the Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which barred state and local protections for LGBTQ people, because it “impose[d] a broad disability upon those persons alone” and “raise[d] the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects.” Laws that inflict a disadvantage on a group based on who they are, not what they do, cannot survive even rational-basis review when motivated by animus.
In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act because its purpose and effect were to demean and disadvantage same-sex couples, a classic example of animus in legislative form. Justice Kennedy’s opinion made clear that DOMA “demean[ed]” same-sex relationships and relegated married same-sex couples to second-class status under federal law.
Also in 2013, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled in Kitchen v. Herbert that Utah’s constitutional ban and legislation on same-sex marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. The state failed to show any rational connection between denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples and any legitimate government interest. Shelby found that excluding same-sex couples demeaned their dignity for no rational reason, a legal judgment grounded in the Constitution’s prohibition on unjustified discrimination.
These rulings point to a simple truth: laws rooted in bias or animosity toward LGBTQ people are unconstitutional. Yet in Utah and across the country, the last several legislative sessions have seen bills targeting transgender youth, the LGBTQ community, and healthcare, driven less by evidence and more by animus. Whether restricting gender-affirming care, erasing LGBTQ protections, or enshrining unequal treatment, these proposals reflect more than policy disagreements; they reflect an underlying hostility to queer and trans lives.
The constitutional problem, as the Supreme Court recognized long ago, is not just that a law burdens a group; it’s why it does so. A bare desire to harm or stigmatize a class of people cannot constitute a legitimate state interest.
But courts only step in after a law is passed. That means our civil liberties depend on litigation to vindicate them. Every time a legislature passes a bill on the basis of animosity as opposed to evidence, it invites costly legal efforts that divert community resources and create uncertainty for LGBTQ+ people.
This season, call your legislators. Ask them whether they are voting with animus or with respect for constitutional rights and the dignity of all Utahns. Ask them to justify how each bill serves a legitimate public interest, rather than simply scoring political points. Democracy is not a free pass to codify prejudice.
If lawmakers refuse to govern fairly, we must be ready and willing to take those laws to court. The Constitution demands nothing less.
