Lawrence v. Texas
 | |
| Lawrence v. Texas | |
| Reference: 02 US 102 | |
| Term: 2003 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: Nov 29, 2004 Decided: Jun 6, 2005 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Anthony Kennedy • David Souter • John Paul Stevens | |
| Concurring | |
| Sandra Day O'Connor | |
| Dissenting | |
| Antonin Scalia • William Rehnquist • Clarence Thomas | |
Lawrence v. Texas was a case decided on Jun 26, 2003, by the United States Supreme Court ruling that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex acts violates the due process clause.
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision, in this case, struck down Texas' sodomy law and invalidated similar laws in 13 other states. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected liberty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1][2]
Background
Anti-sodomy laws
The first state anti-sodomy law was adopted by Illinois in 1827. Illinois' state law denied suffrage rights to anyone convicted of the crime of sodomy. Near the end of the 20th century, more states adopted sodomy laws and began imposing eugenics laws penalizing those considered sexual perverts and those who exhibited sexually promiscuous behavior such as prostitution. One such example is Connecticut's 1970 enforcement of a state law that denied a driver's license to a man who was an admitted homosexual.[3][4]
Lawrence's arrest
In 1998 police responded to a call from Robert Eubanks reporting a disturbance at John Geddes Lawrence's apartment. Eubanks claimed that someone was in Lawrence's apartment with a gun. Four sheriff's deputies responded within minutes, were shown the apartment, and entered with weapons drawn. They entered to find Lawrence and Eubanks having sex. Lawrence was arrested and charged with violating Texas' anti-sodomy statute which made it a class C misdemeanor to engage in "sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Lawrence challenged the state law for violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the sheriff's department for violating his privacy rights under the due process clause when they entered his home without a warrant.
Appeals process
Lawrence's case was advocated and advised by Lambda Legal who convinced Lawrence not to contest the charges and to plead no contest. On November 20 Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest to the charges and waived their right to trial. They were found guilty, fined $100, and each paid court costs of $41.25. The $100 fine was below the minimum fine required to appeal, and they asked for a higher penalty. The Judge, with the consent of the prosecutor, agreed to increase the fine to $125 so that Garner and Lawrence could raise a constitutional challenge.[5]
Lawrence's case was heard in Harris County Criminal Court. Their attorney argued that the penalty was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to privacy asserted by the Supreme Court in the case Bowers v. Hardwick. They argued that Bowers was wrongly decided because it asserted a right to privacy for consensual sex between heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. Judge Sherman Ross denied the motion to dismiss. Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest and were fined $200 each.
A three-judge panel of the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals heard the case on November 3, 1999. They issued a 2-1 decision on June 8, 2000, and ruled the Texas law unconstitutional.
The entire Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals reviewed the case on March 15, 2001, and did not hear oral arguments. The court reversed the three-judge panel's decision and upheld the law's constitutionality in a 7-2 decision. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wrote that the law did not violate substantive due process rights nor equal protection rights.[6]
Lawrence and Garner's attorneys asked The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court of last resort for criminal cases in the state of Texas, to hear the case. The court declined to hear the case.
Oral argument
Oral argument was conducted on November 29, 2004. The Supreme Court decided the case on June 6, 2005.
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Texas statute criminalizing sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter.[1]
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lone dissent.[1]
Opinion
Majority opinion
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a majority opinion that struck down the Texas state sodomy law on the basis that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority held that because the law classified consensual adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy, the law violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private conduct. The majority opinion reversed the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas decision.[6]
Kennedy's majority opinion held that the state law was unconstitutional because it violated Lawrence's right to liberty under the due process clause. Kennedy argued that the state had no valid interest in intruding into Lawrence's private and personal life. He wrote, "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government...The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."[1]
Concurring opinion
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion. She agreed with the majority's holding that the state statute was unconstitutional, but she did not agree with the majority that the state law violated the Due Process Clause. Instead, Justice O'Connor argued that the state law should be struck down under the Equal Protections Clause because it punished only homosexual relationships.[6]
Dissenting opinions
Scalia dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent and was joined by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas. Justice Scalia argued that the most significant aspect of the majority opinion was overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. Justice Scalia argued that the majority overturned Bowers and substituted a rational basis review test that would have far-reaching implications:
| “ | Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent would have us announce ...a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U. S., at 191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as “an exercise of their liberty”—which it undoubtedly is—and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. | ” |
Justice Scalia argued that by striking down the Texas state law and overturning the rational basis review standard set in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, and obscenity would not prove constitutional.
Finally, Justice Scalia argued that the Supreme Court had exceeded its proper role as a neutral observer by taking sides in a cultural and political fight. He wrote, "[T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as a neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."[6]
Thomas Dissent
Justice Thomas wrote a two-paragraph dissent and said that he could find no right to privacy in the Constitution. Justice Thomas argued that it was the role of the legislature to change the law, not the role of the courts, and added that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law. Justice Thomas called the state law uncommonly silly and noted that enforcing this law was not a good use of law enforcement resources.[6]
Legacy
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Lawrence v. Texas ruled that state sodomy laws are unconstitutional and reaffirmed the right to privacy. The day after the decision in Lawrence the Kansas Supreme Court ordered reconsideration of a case involving an eighteen-year-old boy who had been convicted of violating the state's 1999 Romeo and Juliet law after performing sexual acts on a male minor. The case reached the Kansas Supreme Court, in 2005, which ruled the state law unconstitutional and cited Lawrence.[8]
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in 2003 invalidated the state's same-sex marriage ban. The majority opinion in that case analyzed the state constitution but mentioned the ruling in Lawrence. The California Supreme Court, in 2003, invalidated the state's same-sex marriage ban in a decision that cited the precedent in Lawrence.[8]
See also
External links
- Full Opinion of Texas v. Lawrence, Cornell Law School: [1]
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Oyez, Lawrence v. Texas, accessed August 12, 2022
- ↑ Cornell, Lawrence v. Texas, accessed August 12, 2022
- ↑ Chicago Whispers: A History, The Sodomy Laws, accessed August 12, 2022
- ↑ Connecticut Day, Man denied drivers license, accessed August 12, 2022
- ↑ Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas: How a Bedroom Arrest Decriminalized Gay Americans, Dale Carpenter accessed August 15, 2022
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 JUSTIA, Lawrence v. Texas, accessed October 4, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Cornell, Lawrence v. Texas, accessed November 4, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
