American society has always been marked by enhance attention towards moral questions, that is why the history of American legal system reflects unavoidably all tries at placing moral norms on record and fighting for division of right and moral. The Supreme Court of United States of America has always played a huge role in this controversial intention. It is possible to say that certain social factors sometimes caused the U.S. Supreme Court to make contradictive decisions which then were discussed and complained for many times. In the middle of the XX century the struggle for civil rights campaign spread out in the United States. It reorganized the whole country and changed citizen’s attitude to many aspects of life. In a greater degree it proceeded under the slogans of privacy defence. Namely due to this campaign a lot of epochal decisions, such as Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade in 1973 became possible. However, there was a question which wasn’t discussed on the U.S. Supreme Court level but which became more and more pertinent from year to year – homosexualism, or as it was called in some juridical documents – sodomy. By the beginning of 1970s sodomy laws that criminalized homosexual relationships were adopted in all American states. In the face of extremely intolerant social attitude to homosexuality this topic wasn’t brought up for discussion. Nevertheless different human rights movements brought pressure to bear with the view of legal system liberalization which includes supreme instances. The first attempt took place in 1986, it was “Bowers v. Hardwick” case. The Atlanta police officer Keith Torick was sent to Michael Hardwick’s apartment to serve a penalty warrant to the last. He showed up in his room, where observed Hardwick and another adult man engaged in consensual oral sex. Both men were arrested for sodomy which was prohibited by the law of Georgia State and carried a sentence of one to twenty years imprisonment. Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia and the opponent of Hardwick insisted on the fact that the accused was an active homosexual so he was liable to suffer conviction for his activities (Bowers v. Hardwick, n.d.). Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the U.S. Constitution “does not grant any fundamental rights to be engaged in homosexual sodomy” (Ball, 2003, p.47). Consequently this right should not be defended in a special way. In a decision, endorsed by five votes against four, there was said: “To confirm that the right for this kind of behaviour is deeply enrooted in national history and tradition and that it is initially established in freedom conception – it is ridiculously at best” (Bowers v. Hardwick, n.d.). More than that, the U.S. Supreme Court chairman U. Berger wrote in his concurring opinion that the prohibition of homosexuality has “deep roots” and to confirm that the right for homosexual intercourse is fundamental means to reject the millenniums of moralism. The waves of Supreme Court cases might create the misimpression that police departments were eager to get homosexual behaviour out of public places where it might insult heterosexual bystanders. However, in fact, the police tried hard to catch, frighten and bring homosexuals low wherever they could find them. In