9th Circuit Court ruling for "heightened scrutiny" regarding sexual orientation will stand

Most laws that create groups or classifications are tasked with demonstrating there is a rational basis, or a legitimate reason, for the law.

Laws subjected to "heightened scrutiny" have a steeper hill to climb. Those that classify based on race, must show a compelling state interest for classifying people. Other lawas, based on sexual orientation, must show an important state interest in doing so.

In the January ruling for the SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that “classifications based on sexual orientation … are subject to heightened scrutiny.”

In light of Abbott's decision to not appeal, the ruling will now affect all cases in the 9th Circuit Court moving forward.

From Buzzfeed:

On Jan. 21, the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit stated, “Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.”

Abbott had 14 days — which would have been Feb. 4 — to ask the 9th Circuit panel to rehear the case or for an en banc, or larger, panel of 9th Circuit judges to consider the appeal. Abbott asked for and was granted a 30-day extension, which passed March 6.

Friday night, the Human Rights Campaign announced in a news release that not only was Abbott not seeking further review from the 9th Circuit but additionally that the company would not be asking the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit decision.

“AbbVie (the pharmaceutical spin-off of Abbott Laboratories) recognizes that the implications of the Court’s findings extend far beyond the underlying case. For that reason, we chose not to appeal,” a spokesman for told BuzzFeed.