In Obergefell v Hodges, a five-member Court majority concluded that the bans did indeed violate both 14 Amendment provisions. Justice O'Connor added a sixth vote to overturn the conviction, but rested her decision solely on the Equal Protection Clause. In California, where the state legislature legalized same sex marriage only to have the voters overturn that law by initiative Amendment 8 , a federal district court found Amendment 8 to violate federal equal protection principles and the state chose not to appeal. One of the five members of the majority, Justice Powell, later described his vote in the case as a mistake. In , facing a circuit split, the Supreme Court resolved the question of whether state bans on gay marriage violated the Equal Protection and. What limitations does the Constitution place on ability of states to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation? Justice Scalia ridiculed the reasoning of the Court, indicating in a footnote that he would hold his head "in a bag" if he were compelled to join the majority's opinion. Voting 5 to 4, the Court overruled its earlier decision in Bowers v Hardwick and found that the state lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults. Michael Hardwick, who sought to enjoin enforcement of the Georgia law, had been charged with sodomy after a police officer discovered him in bed with another man. The provision, Amendment 2, effectively repealed anti-discrimination laws in Boulder, Aspen, and Denver. The Court first considered the matter in the case of Bowers v Hardwick, a challenge to a Georgia law authorizing criminal penalties for persons found guilty of sodomy. In dissent, Scalia suggested that the decision would soon lead to another declaring state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and argued the matter was better left to the states to decide. The Supreme Court in considered a challenge to a Texas law that criminalized homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. Although the Georgia law applied both to heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, the Supreme Court chose to consider only the constitutionality of applying the law to homosexual sodomy.