Lawrence v. Texas: Difference between revisions
(Addeds summary background with reference) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (adding the year it passed and rearranging details a bit) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Lawrence v. Texas (2003)''' was a landmark legal case | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Lawrence v. Texas (2003)''' was a landmark 2003 legal case that invalidated sodomy law across the United States, making same-sex sexual activity legal. It was decided by the [[United States Supreme Court/Definition|U.S. Supreme Court]] in 6–3 decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, and it overturned the previous ruling of the Supreme Court on the same issue in ''Bowers v. Hardwick'' (1986), where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. The court in ''Lawrence v. Texas'' held that intimate consensual sexual conduct is a liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment. | |||
According to one legal paper, | According to one legal paper, | ||
Revision as of 12:25, 10 March 2023
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) was a landmark 2003 legal case that invalidated sodomy law across the United States, making same-sex sexual activity legal. It was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 6–3 decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, and it overturned the previous ruling of the Supreme Court on the same issue in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. The court in Lawrence v. Texas held that intimate consensual sexual conduct is a liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to one legal paper,
"The Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidat[ed] a state law criminally punishing homosexual sodomy between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Under this statute, armed agents of the state could and did storm into private homes and tear innocent citizens from the arms of their loved ones, merely because other people were offended at the thought that homosexual sex might be taking place somewhere. Mr. Lawrence appealed his criminal conviction and the Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional."
- Sandefur, Timothy, "Clarence Thomas's Jurisprudence Unexplained" (September 22, 2008). NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, p. 6, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1272053