Lawrence vs. Texas

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty of adults to engage in private, consensual intimate conduct without government intrusion. Laws criminalizing such conduct between same-sex adults violate this fundamental liberty interest.

• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) upheld Georgia’s sodomy law, finding no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
• Texas § 21.06(a) uniquely criminalized same-sex sodomy while permitting identical conduct between opposite-sex couples.
• Growing national trend decriminalizing sodomy (only 13 states retained sodomy laws by 2003; only 4 targeted same-sex conduct exclusively).

• Filed in Justice of the Peace Court (Harris County, TX).
• Convicted; appealed de novo to Harris County Criminal Court (convictions upheld).
• Affirmed by Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District (en banc), citing Bowers as controlling.
• Elevated to SC via certiorari.

• Houston police entered Lawrence’s apartment responding to a false weapons disturbance report.
• Officers observed Lawrence and Garner engaging in consensual anal sex.
• Arrested and charged under § 21.06(a) ("deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex").
• Both pleaded nolo contendere, fined $200 each plus court costs.

• § 21.06(a) violates Equal Protection by criminalizing conduct solely for same-sex couples.
• § 21.06(a) violates substantive due process by infringing on liberty/privacy rights to engage in consensual adult intimacy.
• Bowers was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

• No fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy exists under Bowers.
• Moral disapproval of homosexual conduct is a legitimate state interest supporting rational basis review.
• The law regulates conduct, not status, and applies equally to men and women.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. Whether convictions under Texas’s same-sex sodomy law violate the Due Process Clause.
  2. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. Yes. The statute violates due process by criminalizing private, consensual adult intimacy. Liberty protects personal autonomy in spatial and intimate dimensions, including sexual conduct in the home.
  2. Yes. Bowers was incorrectly decided. Its historical analysis was flawed, and its reasoning contradicts evolving understandings of liberty (Casey, Romer).

• Substantive Due Process (Liberty Interest):
  • The Due Process Clause protects fundamental liberty interests, including decisions about intimate relationships and sexual conduct.
  • Applied: Adults have a liberty interest in engaging in private, consensual intimacy without government punishment.
  • Overruling Precedent (Stare Decisis):
  • Bowers was overruled because: (1) its historical premises were overstated; (2) it conflicted with later decisions (Casey, Romer); (3) it had not induced detrimental reliance; (4) its reasoning was widely criticized.
• Rational Basis Review (Equal Protection - O'Connor Concurrence):
  • Moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate state interest under rational basis review when a law targets a specific group.

• "Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places."
• "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
• "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent."

• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): Overruled. Misapprehended the liberty at stake; historical basis for sodomy laws was more complex than asserted.
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): Affirmed liberty includes personal autonomy in intimate decisions; cited to erode Bowers.
• Romer v. Evans (1996): Struck down law based on animus toward homosexuals; further undermined Bowers.
• Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 1981): Cited to show international rejection of Bowers’ reasoning.

• U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (Due Process Clause): Protects liberty interests, including privacy and intimate conduct.
• Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003): Criminalized "deviate sexual intercourse" with same-sex partners.

• Justice O’Connor (Concurring in Judgment):
  • Agreed § 21.06(a) was unconstitutional but relied on Equal Protection, not due process.
  • The law failed rational basis review because it was based solely on moral disapproval of a group, constituting impermissible animus (Romer).

• Justice Scalia (joined by Rehnquist, Thomas):
  • Accused the majority of judicial activism, abandoning stare decisis without justification.
  • Argued moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest for rational basis review; decision threatens laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, etc.
• Justice Thomas:
  • Called the law "uncommonly silly" but found no constitutional right to privacy or liberty in the text.