Lawrence v. Texas

***Lawrence v. Texas***, 539 US 558 (2003), is the primary piece of case law which ultimately decriminalized sodomy in the United States. Ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court in 2003, _Lawrence v. Texas_ concerned a Texas law that criminalized consensual, adult homosexual intercourse which was found unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Background of the case

Houston Police were tipped off to a weapons disturbance purportedly from the residence of John Lawrence. Upon entering the apartment, police found Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaging in sexual intercourse. At the time, a statute was in place which banned such homosexual sex acts and further deemed homosexuality a "deviance." Both Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted under this statute.

Upon appeal, the Texas State Court of Appeals affirmed the men's convictions citing _Bowers v. Hardwick_, 478 US 186 (1986), as the controlling case.

Lawrence filed for certiorari to the Supreme Court which was granted in 2003.

## Ruling

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court voted to overturn Lawrence's conviction and declared the Texas anti-sodomy statute unconstitutional. The decision hinged on the right of Lawrence and Garner to engage in private conduct under the Due Process Clause. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, stated "[Lawrence and Garner's] right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." The decision to overturn _Bowers v. Hardwick_ was 5-4, with Justice O'Connor (a member of the _Bowers_ majority back in 1986) refusing to overturn _Bowers_ and instead supporting the _Lawrence_ ruling on narrower Equal Protection grounds because the challenged Texas law made male-male sodomy illegal but not male-female sodomy.

## Criticism

In a 2004 law review article, U.S. law professors Nelson Lund and John McGinnis criticized _Lawrence v. Texas_ due to its alleged judicial hubris and expressed fears that its extremely broad language could have unexpected consequences in the long(er)-run.

## Related pages

United States Obscenity Law (obscenity)

## Further reading

Carpenter, Dale. (2012). _Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence V. Texas_. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc.

## Infobox (scotus case)

- **litigants**: John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. Texas
- **arguedate**: March 26
- **argueyear**: 2003
- **decidedate**: June 26
- **decideyear**: 2003
- **fullname**: Lawrence et al. v. Texas
- **usvol**: 539
- **uspage**: 558
- **docket**: 02-102
- **oralargument**: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
- **opinionannouncement**: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
- **holding**: A Texas statute banning homosexual intercourse violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- **scotus**: 1994-2005
- **majority**: Anthony M. Kennedy
- **joinmajority**: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer
- **concurrence**: Sandra Day O'Connor
- **dissent**: Clarence Thomas
- **joindissent**: William H. Rehnquist
- **dissent2**: Antonin Scalia
- **lawsapplied**: 41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded