Lawrence Vs Texas

Lawrence v Texas

539 Us 558 (2003)

The Vote: 

The Court rendered the opinion per curium with a vote of 6-3 in reference to the matter of the unconstitutionality of banning same-sex sodomy. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court and Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Souter, and Justice Stephen concurred. Justice O’Connor issued a concurring opinion while Justice Scalia together with Justice Rehnquist issued a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

The Opinion: 

 The Court voted to reverse the outcome of the initial case and deemed it unconstitutional to ban same-sex sodomy when both parties are of age and engaging in a consensual act.

Facts of the Case:

        The police visited a private residence after receiving a phone call complaining about a weapons disturbance. Police Officers in Houston, Texas entered the apartment of John Lawrence where they observed him and another man engaging in same sex sodomy. The two men were arrested and convicted of violating a Texas law that states that two people of the same sex could not legally engage in same sex sodomy.

        Lawrence and his male partner, Garner, challenged this law as a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. After Texas courts rejected these claims based on a previous case, Bowers v Hardwick, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

        When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, many amici entered in the dispute asking for the court to strike down the law. Many of the briefs that were issued criticized the historical premise on which the outcome of Bowers v Hardwick relied, while others pointed out the challenges faced and the difference in the timeframes of the two cases. When Bowers v Hardwick was decided, Sodomy itself was illegal in half of the states. However when Lawrence v Texas took place (2003), only 13 states outlawed sodomy and only four of them enforced their laws solely against homosexual acts.

Questions to be Decided:

        Did the Petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law violates the fourteenth amendments guarantee of equal protection of laws? Did the petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of he Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v Hardwick (1968) be overruled?

The Decision:

        It was stated that Liberty protects us from unwarranted governmental intrusions into a private place and that the State is not omnipresent in the home. Freedom extends beyond spatial boundaries and the state should not be a dominant presence in the private parts of our lives. Liberty is meant to include the freedom on thought, belief, expression, and intimate conducts. The latter is meant to include acts between two individuals recognized as adults who both consent to the act in question. The two petitioners fit into this mold as their sexual act was performed in a private setting where both of them were consenting adults at the time. As the law in question is specifically speaking of homosexual sodomy, and sodomy in a relationship or marriage between a male and a woman is not outlawed, the law itself is in violation of the fourteenth amendment and the due process clause.