93 Cited authorities

Turner v. Safley
482 U.S. 78 (1987) Cited 10,407 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding a regulation unconstitutional after noting that the prison "pointed to nothing in the record suggesting" the existence of a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest and that "[c]ommon sense likewise suggests that there is no [such] connection"
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
473 U.S. 432 (1985) Cited 9,953 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class
Washington v. Glucksberg
521 U.S. 702 (1997) Cited 2,716 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide
Heller v. Doe
509 U.S. 312 (1993) Cited 2,374 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"
Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.
508 U.S. 307 (1993) Cited 2,281 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"
Reno v. Flores
507 U.S. 292 (1993) Cited 1,771 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the immigration context, minors aged sixteen or seventeen are not "too young or too ignorant to exercise" their right to make a revocable waiver of a removal or deportation hearing
Lawrence v. Texas
539 U.S. 558 (2003) Cited 1,171 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding statute that criminalizes two persons of same sex engaging in intimate sexual conduct unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment
Maryland v. Craig
497 U.S. 836 (1990) Cited 1,825 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants do not have an "absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial"
Washington v. Davis
426 U.S. 229 (1976) Cited 3,321 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause
Romer v. Evans
517 U.S. 620 (1996) Cited 1,276 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding unlawful a state law that precluded local ordinances from protecting homosexuals from discrimination because it "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects"
Section 51 - Unruh Civil Rights Act
Cal. Civ. Code § 51 Cited 5,093 times 35 Legal Analyses
Incorporating ADA violations
Section 51.7 - Right to be free from violence; Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976
Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7 Cited 533 times
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976. (b) (1) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of
Section 7 - Marriage
1 U.S.C. § 7 Cited 152 times 9 Legal Analyses
Containing no money-mandating provisions
Section 7570 - Legislative findings and declaration
Cal. Fam. Code § 7570 Cited 120 times
In Family Code section 7570, the Legislature “finds and declares” that “[t]here is a compelling state interest in establishing paternity for all children.
Section 220 - Generally
Cal. Ed. Code § 220 Cited 104 times 1 Legal Analyses
Barring discrimination in schools receiving state funding
Section 297 - Domestic partners defined; partnership established by Declaration of Domestic Partnership
Cal. Fam. Code § 297 Cited 61 times 2 Legal Analyses
(a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring. (b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of filing, all of the following requirements are met: (1) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else
Section 422.55 - "Hate crime" defined
Cal. Pen. Code § 422.55 Cited 56 times
For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply: (a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability. (2) Gender. (3) Nationality. (4) Race or ethnicity. (5) Religion. (6) Sexual orientation. (7) Association with a person or group with one or
Section 5 - Incestuous and void marriages
N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 5 Cited 46 times
A marriage is incestuous and void whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate between either: 1. An ancestor and a descendant; 2. A brother and sister of either the whole or the half blood; 3. An uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew. If a marriage prohibited by the foregoing provisions of this section be solemnized it shall be void, and the parties thereto shall each be fined not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars and may, in the discretion of the court in addition to said
Section 7.5
Cal. Const. art. I § 7.5 Cited 28 times
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Cal. Const. art. I § 7.5 Added by Proposition 8, approved by the voters 11/4/2008, effective 11/5/2008.
Section 572-1 - Requisites of valid marriage contract
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1 Cited 20 times
In order to make valid the marriage contract, which shall be permitted between two individuals without regard to gender, it shall be necessary that: (1) The respective parties do not stand in relation to each other of ancestor and descendant of any degree whatsoever, two siblings of the half as well as to the whole blood, uncle and niece, uncle and nephew, aunt and nephew, or aunt and niece, whether the relationship is the result of the issue of parents married or not married to each other or parents

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

93 Cited authorities

Holding a regulation unconstitutional after noting that the prison "pointed to nothing in the record suggesting" the existence of a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest and that "[c]ommon sense likewise suggests that there is no [such] connection"

Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class

Holding that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide

Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"

Holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"

Holding that, in the immigration context, minors aged sixteen or seventeen are not "too young or too ignorant to exercise" their right to make a revocable waiver of a removal or deportation hearing

Holding statute that criminalizes two persons of same sex engaging in intimate sexual conduct unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

Holding that defendants do not have an "absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial"

Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

Holding unlawful a state law that precluded local ordinances from protecting homosexuals from discrimination because it "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects"

Incorporating ADA violations

Containing no money-mandating provisions

In Family Code section 7570, the Legislature “finds and declares” that “[t]here is a compelling state interest in establishing paternity for all children.

Barring discrimination in schools receiving state funding