## Facts

- Cincinnati voters adopted a City Charter amendment (“Issue 3”) barring the City and its boards from enacting or enforcing any measure treating “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relationship” as a basis for “minority or protected status” or “preferential treatment,” and voiding inconsistent ordinances.
- Advocacy organizations and individual plaintiffs sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The federal district court issued preliminary and permanent injunctions, reasoning the amendment foreclosed political remedies for gay, lesbian, and bisexual residents and applying heightened scrutiny.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed and upheld the amendment under rational-basis review; after a Supreme Court vacatur and remand for reconsideration in light of *Romer v. Evans*, the Sixth Circuit again upheld the amendment.
- Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari after the Sixth Circuit’s 1997 decision; the Supreme Court denied certiorari, with an opinion by Justice Stevens (joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg) respecting the denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari constituted a decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge to Cincinnati’s charter amendment.
2. Whether uncertainty about the proper construction of the local charter provision counseled against Supreme Court review.
3. What legal effect the denial of certiorari had on the Sixth Circuit judgment upholding the amendment under the Equal Protection Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, stated that denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and should not be read as endorsing any interpretation of the charter or any view of the constitutional questions.
- A principal reason identified for declining review was disagreement about the proper construction of the charter amendment under local law, making the case an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the federal issue.
- The Sixth Circuit’s judgment upholding the amendment remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of certiorari does not decide the merits and has no precedential effect as to the correctness of the lower court’s reasoning or result.
- The Supreme Court may deny certiorari when a case presents substantial uncertainty about the controlling meaning of a state or local law provision, making the record an unsuitable basis for resolving a constitutional question.
- When certiorari is denied, the lower court judgment stands without Supreme Court approval or disapproval.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari left the Sixth Circuit’s decision upholding Cincinnati’s charter amendment in place, while expressly cautioning that the denial was not a merits ruling and should not be taken as any statement about the amendment’s proper construction or its constitutionality under the Equal Protection Clause.


Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, No. 97-1795 (1998)