What was the general argument in Lawrence v Texas and the end result?

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.  The Court held that a Texas statute criminalizing intimate, consensual sexual conduct was a violation of the Due Process Clause.  The statute at issue originally criminalized any oral and anal sexual activity.  However, it was rewritten to apply only to homosexual conduct.  Lambda Legal represented the defendants.  Their goal was to not only challenge the Texas statute, but also all 13 laws still enforceable in states.  The defendants pled no contest from the beginning, which allowed them to challenge the law without disputing the facts.  The risk for the defendants and the LGBTQ community more generally, was a repeat from 17 years earlier with the Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 187 (1986) decision.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court held this activity was not constitutionally protected, and individuals could be arrested for engaging in consensual, sexually intimate acts in their own homes.  

In the majority opinion of Lawrence, Justice Kennedy began with the following lines:

 Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

He made clear that adults are free to engage with one another in the privacy of their own homes "without intervention of the government."  He added that the "Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."  The Court added that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.  It ought not to remain binding precedent.  Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."  

The Court reiterated the principles outlined in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992): "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions related to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."  And continued by stating that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.  The decision in Bowers would deny them this right." 

The language of the Lawrence decision provided a foundation that has allowed for continued progress in civil rights for the LGBTQ community.  

Library Resources

• Flagrant conduct: the story of Lawrence v. Texas: how a bedroom arrest decriminalized gay Americans, KF224.L39 C37 2012  
• The case for gay rights: from Bowers to Lawrence and beyond, KF4754.5 .R525 2005

Page 2

California has always been thought of as a progressive state. In general, the west coast is seen as more liberal than the southeastern seaboard. However, events arose surrounding gay rights in 2008 in California that threw its stance as a bastion of liberal progressivism into question. Proposition 8, known colloquially as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the 2008 California state election. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage before the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on In re Marriage Cases. This decision found the 2000 ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 22, unconstitutional. In the long run, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court in 2010, although that decision did not go into effect until 2013, following the conclusion of Prop 8 advocates' appeals, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prop 8 negated the In re Marriages Cases ruling by adding the same provision as Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause." One justice dissented, noting that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority. One reason that Prop 8 was upheld by the Supreme Court while Proposition 22 was not rests in the fact that Proposition 22 was only a statute while Prop 8 was an amendment to the state constitution. Statutes do not have the same weight as constitutional amendments - which would arguably be a reason to overturn Prop 8 all the more. But in this instance, the court saw it as a reason to uphold the will of the voters.

Among the advocates for Prop 8 were religious organizations, most notably the Roman Catholic church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While it is estimated that Catholic Archbishops and lay organizations were able to donate about $3 million to Prop 8, Mormons contributed over $20 million, a good part of that coming from Utah. LDS church members were said to be about 80 to 90% of the volunteers for door-to-door canvassing.

Once Prop 8 had been upheld by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against Prop 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Hollingsworth v. Perry. In August of 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it removed rights from a disfavored class with no rational basis. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law. The ruling was stayed pending appeal by advocates of Prop 8. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on different, narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. This ruling was then stayed pending appeal by Prop 8's advocates to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives like Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing to defend the resulting law in federal court. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This left the 2010 decision of the district court as the binding decision. Thus, Prop 8 was held unconstitutional and Governor Brown was free to permit same-sex marriages to recommence.

Notable Supreme Court Cases:

• Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) - this case dealt with the Prop 8 litigation coming out of California. The Court held that, as private parties with a “generalized grievance,” the Prop 8 proponents did not have standing to appeal the District Court ruling. The Court explained that Article III of the Constitution confines the power of the federal courts to deciding actual “cases” or “controversies.” Once the District Court issued its order, the Prop 8 proponents “no longer had any injury to redress,” and that “no matter how deeply committed petitioners may be to upholding Proposition 8,” their interest was insufficient to confer standing. Given its ruling, the Supreme Court left the District Court's opinion – that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment – as the final and controlling decision on the merits.

Library Resources:

• Anqi Li, Uses of History in the Press and in Court During California's Battle Over Proposition 8: Casting Same-Sex Marriage as a Civil Right, HQ1034.U5 L52 2012

• David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage Equality, KF228.H645 B65 2014

• Kenji Yoshino, Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial: The Story of Hollingsworth v. Perry, KF228.H645 Y67 2015

Read the full-text amicus brief (PDF, 159KB)

Whether a Texas statute that makes sodomy between same-sex couples a crime is constitutional

Sexual Orientation (sodomy)

This is an action challenging the constitutionality of a Texas law that makes sodomy between same-sex couples a crime. In this case, the plaintiffs were arrested when a police officer observed them engaging in consensual sexual activity in one of their homes. They were convicted of violating the Homosexual Conduct Statute, which reads: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The petitioners appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas initially held that the petitioners' convictions violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution. However, the Fourteenth Court then reheard the case en banc and upheld the statute, reinstating the ban on homosexual sodomy. The case was then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals who refused to hear the case. The defendants then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to have their convictions overturned and the law deemed unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court granted cert. The issues before the Court involve whether there is a legitimate privacy right of homosexuals that is violated by the statute and whether there is a violation of equal protection principles because the law only addresses this conduct between same sex couples.

APA submitted a brief (and the American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers and the Texas Chapter of NASW joined in) arguing that the proscribed sexual conduct is a normal part of the intimate relations of Americans and that same-sex sexual conduct is an important part of long-term intimate relationships for many gay men and lesbians. APA's participation in this case is an extension of its involvement as amici in earlier cases that challenge anti-sodomy statutes (including Bowers v. Hardwick, addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986). The brief explains the nature of sexual orientation, noting that homosexuality is common, generally not chosen and is resistant to change, is not a disorder and does not affect one's ability to contribute to society. The brief also argues that suppressing sexual intimacy among same-sex partners would deprive gay men and lesbians of the opportunity to participate in fundamental aspects of human experience. The brief further argues that anti-sodomy statutes like the Texas statute reinforce prejudice, discrimination and violence against gay men and lesbians.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, concluded that Texas' "homosexual conduct" law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and overruled its prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld antisodomy laws.