Opinion ID: 2066513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: equal protection analysis generally

Text: [T]he concept of equal protection [under both the state and federal constitutions] has been traditionally viewed as requiring the uniform treatment of persons standing in the same relation to the governmental action questioned or challenged. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Matos, 240 Conn. 743, 760, 694 A.2d 775 (1997); see also Stuart v. Commissioner of Correction, 266 Conn. 596, 601, 834 A.2d 52 (2003) (constitutional right of equal protection is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike [internal quotation marks omitted]). Conversely, the equal protection clause places no restrictions on the state's authority to treat dissimilar persons in a dissimilar manner. . . . Thus, [t]o implicate the equal protection [clause] . . . it is necessary that the state statute . . . in question, either on its face or in practice, treat persons standing in the same relation to it differently. . . . [Accordingly], the analytical predicate [of an equal protection claim] is a determination of who are the persons [purporting to be] similarly situated. . . . The similarly situated inquiry focuses on whether the [plaintiff is] similarly situated to another group for purposes of the challenged government action. . . . Thus, [t]his initial inquiry is not whether persons are similarly situated for all purposes, but whether they are similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stuart v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, at 601-602, 834 A.2d 52; see also City Recycling, Inc. v. State, 257 Conn. 429, 448, 778 A.2d 77 (2001). This court has held, in accordance with the federal constitutional framework of analysis, that `in areas of social and economic policy that neither proceed along suspect lines nor infringe fundamental constitutional rights, the [e]qual [p]rotection [c]lause is satisfied [as] long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, see United States Railroad Retirement [Board] v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 179 [101 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed.2d 368] (1980), the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the governmental decisionmaker, see Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 [101 S.Ct. 715, 66 L.Ed.2d 659] (1981), and the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational, see Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc ., 473 U.S. [432, 446, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) ].' . . . Hammond v. Commissioner of Correction, 259 Conn. 855, 885, 792 A.2d 774 (2002); accord Luce v. United Technologies Corp., 247 Conn. 126, 144, 717 A.2d 747 (1998). `If, however, state action invidiously discriminates against a suspect class or affects a fundamental right, the action passes constitutional muster . . . only if it survives strict scrutiny.' Daly v. DelPonte, 225 Conn. 499, 513, 624 A.2d 876 (1993). Under that heightened standard, `the state must demonstrate that the challenged statute is necessary to the achievement of a compelling state interest.' Rayhall v. Akim Co., 263 Conn. 328, 342-43, 819 A.2d 803 (2003). Although the federal constitution does not expressly enumerate any suspect classes, the United States Supreme Court has identified three such classifications, namely, race, alienage and national origin. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., supra, 473 U.S. at 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249. In contrast to the federal constitution, the state constitution identifies certain inherently suspect classifications. See, e.g., Daly v. DelPonte, supra, 225 Conn. at 513-14, 624 A.2d 876. These classifications, which are set forth in article first, § 20, of the Connecticut constitution, as amended by articles five and twenty-one of the amendments, include religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, physical disability and mental disability. Because the members of those classes have been deemed to be especially subject to discrimination; id., at 515, 624 A.2d 876; their rights are protected by requiring encroachments on [those] rights to pass a strict scrutiny test. Id., at 514, 624 A.2d 876. Additionally, for purposes of federal equal protection analysis, the United States Supreme Court also has developed an intermediate level of scrutiny that lies [b]etween [the] extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny. Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988). Intermediate scrutiny typically is used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications. . . such as gender, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976), or [il]legitimacy, Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91, 98-99, 102 S.Ct. 1549, 71 L.Ed.2d 770 (1982). On occasion intermediate scrutiny has been applied to review of a law that affects an important, though not constitutional, right. [ United States v. Coleman, 166 F.3d 428, 431 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1138, 119 S.Ct. 1794, 143 L.Ed.2d [1021]1201 (1999)]; cf. Plyler [ v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) ] (applying, without labeling it as such, an intermediate form of scrutiny to review a law that implicated right to education). Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged legislative enactment is substantially related to an important governmental interest. [18] (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ramos v. Vernon, 353 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir.2003). This court also has determined that, for purposes of the state constitution, [the] two-tier analysis of the law of equal protection. . . that distinguishes only between legislation requiring strict scrutiny, which typically fails to pass constitutional muster, and legislation requiring a rational basis, which typically does pass, is not sufficiently precise to resolve all cases. Legislation that involves rights that may be significant, though not fundamental, or classifications that are sensitive, though not suspect, may demand some form of intermediate review. Eielson v. Parker, 179 Conn. 552, 564, 427 A.2d 814 (1980); see also Daly v. DelPonte, supra, 225 Conn. at 513, 624 A.2d 876 (identifying three levels of scrutiny for equal protection purposes); cf. Contractor's Supply of Waterbury, LLC v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 283 Conn. 86, 103, 925 A.2d 1071 (2007) (our own case law and precedent . . . support the conclusion that, when [legislation] does not impact a fundamental right, a suspect class or a [quasi-suspect] class, our state constitution generally mandates [a rational basis] level of scrutiny). In Carofano v. Bridgeport, 196 Conn. 623, 495 A.2d 1011 (1985), which, like the present case, involved a claim under the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, we further explained: Courts have tended to depart from the minimal standard [when] the interests affected by the governmental restriction are sufficiently elevated in the hierarchy of social values and to devise various formulae less rigid than the compelling state interest criterion that essentially necessitate balancing private against governmental concerns with varying degrees of deference to legislative judgment.. . . Situations triggering . . . intermediate review, other than sensitive classifications relating to stereo-types or disadvantaged minorities, have usually involved a significant interference with liberty or the denial of benefits considered to be vital to the individual. (Citations omitted.) Id., at 641-42, 495 A.2d 1011. We therefore apply the same three-tiered equal protection methodology that is applied under the federal equal protection clause for purposes of our state constitution. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs' equal protection claim does not satisfy two threshold equal protection principles. Specifically, the defendants contend, first, that same sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite sex couples and, second, that the classes enumerated in article first, § 20, of the state constitution, as amended, constitute an exclusive list of protected groups. We reject each of these claims. With respect to their first claim, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to opposite sex couples, thereby obviating the need for this court to engage in an equal protection analysis, because the conduct that they seek to engage inmarrying someone of the same sexis fundamentally different from the conduct in which opposite sex couples seek to engage. We disagree. It is true, of course, that the plaintiffs differ from persons who choose to marry a person of the opposite sex insofar as each of the plaintiffs seeks to marry a person of the same sex. Otherwise, however, the plaintiffs can meet the same statutory eligibility requirements applicable to persons who seek to marry, including restrictions related to public safety, such as age; see General Statutes § 46b-30; and consanguinity. See General Statutes § 46b-21. The plaintiffs also share the same interest in a committed and loving relationship as heterosexual persons who wish to marry, and they share the same interest in having a family and raising their children in a loving and supportive environment. Indeed, the legislature itself recognized the overriding similarities between same sex and opposite sex couples when, upon passage of the civil union law, it granted same sex couples the same legal rights that married couples enjoy. We therefore agree with the California Supreme Court and conclude that the defendants' contention that same sex and opposite sex couples are not similarly situated clearly lacks merit. [B]oth [same sex and opposite sex couples] consist of pairs of individuals who wish to enter into a formal, legally binding and officially recognized, long-term family relationship that affords the same rights and privileges and imposes the same obligations and responsibilities. Under these circumstances, there is no question but that these two categories of individuals are sufficiently similar to bring into play equal protection principles that require a court to determine whether distinctions between the two groups justify the unequal treatment. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 831 n. 54, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384; see also Lewis v. Harris, supra, 188 N.J. at 448, 451, 908 A.2d 196 (same sex couples are similarly situated to their heterosexual counterparts); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 218-19, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (statute prohibiting marriage of same sex couples treats them differently from similarly situated opposite sex couples). In light of the multitude of characteristics that same sex and opposite sex couples have in common, we conclude that the two groups are similarly situated for purposes of the plaintiffs' equal protection challenge to the state statutory scheme governing marriage. [19] The defendants also assert that, because article first, § 20, of the state constitution, as amended by articles five and twenty-one of the amendments, expressly prohibits discrimination against eight enumerated classes, no other group is entitled to any form of heightened protection under our state constitutional equal protection provisions. We also reject this assertion, first, because it is inconsistent with previous cases of this court in which we have expressed our approval of the three-tiered methodology for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution. See, e.g., Carofano v. Bridgeport, supra, 196 Conn. at 641-42, 495 A.2d 1011; Keogh v. Bridgeport, 187 Conn. 53, 66-67, 444 A.2d 225 (1982); Eielson v. Parker, supra, 179 Conn. at 563-64, 427 A.2d 814. Indeed, we previously have observed that, although the framers' failure expressly to include a particular group within the ambit of article first, § 20, as amended, is a relevant consideration in determining whether that group is entitled to special protection, it is not dispositive of the issue. See Moore v. Ganim, 233 Conn. 557, 597, 660 A.2d 742 (1995). Furthermore, the history surrounding the adoption of article first, § 20, of the state constitution indicates that its drafters intended that provision to embody the very strongest human rights principle that this convention can put forth to the people of Connecticut; 2 Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965) p. 692, remarks of Representative James J. Kennelly; and, in accordance with that purpose, that the provision should be read expansively. See id., at p. 691, remarks of former United States Representative Chase Going Woodhouse ([w]e all realize that rights of individuals in this country have developed and have changed from time to time, and we certainly would not want to have in our [c]onstitution any language that would in the future perhaps limit new rights). Finally, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the groups enumerated in article first, § 20, as amended, were intended to constitute an exhaustive list of suspect classes, the plaintiffs are not barred from recognition as a quasi-suspect classthe claim that we resolve in their favorbecause the two classes are separate and distinct from one another. Indeed, under the defendants' view, heightened protection would be available only to those classes that had marshaled the political will and popular support to secure a constitutional amendment in their favor, a result inconsistent with the rationale underlying the state constitutional equal protection provisions. We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs' equal protection claim is not foreclosed merely because sexual orientation is not an enumerated classification in article first, § 20, as amended.