John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. Texas Case Brief **DO NOT COPY**

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. Texas

U.S. Supreme Court

539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Facts: Officers of Harris County, Texas police department were sent to the residence of John Geddes Lawrence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered the apartment, and observed Lawrence and Tyron Garner (another man), engaging in a sexual act. The men were then arrested under Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06 (a).

Procedural History:  The defendants challenged the statute under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the contentions were rejected. The defendants then pleaded nolo contendere, and were fined $200 each by the Harris County Criminal Court. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision after considering arguments under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the lower court’s ruling was reversed (6-3).

Issue Presented: Did the defendants’ criminal convictions under Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Did the defendants’ criminal conviction violate their privacy and liberty that are protected by the Due Process Clause? Should Bowers v. Hardwick be overruled?

Decision:  Yes, the Supreme Court found the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause both applied to the case, and overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.

Holding:  Criminalizing sodomy in only the case of homosexuals is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as it deprived them of state protections that the majority claimed. The conviction also violated the defendants’ liberty and privacy, as the Due Process Clause grants liberty to engage in actions free from government intervention. Bowers v. Hardwick is overruled, as a view that the majority holds is not inherently right, even if they view an act as “immoral.”

Reasoning:  Bowers seeks to control private relationships, and it seeks to establish a legal moral code, something to court has no power to do. After Bowers, many states have repealed their anti-sodomy laws, or stopped enforcing them, showing a shift in public opinion away from anti-sodomy and anti-homosexual legislation, and the court may have been reacting to this shift. The Due Process Clause allows for a degree of privacy to perform consensual sex with legal adults, and it grants liberty to do the same without intervention from the government. The Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from harm and undue difficulty in pursuing happiness, and shows all to be equal under the eyes of the law. The Texas law treats sodomy as a right reserved only for the heterosexuals, making them unequal under the law.  

Precedents:  Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), stands for the proposition that there is no fundamental right to sodomy for homosexuals. (overruled)

       Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), stands for the proposition that the right to privacy is a protected interest under the eyes of the law, especially the privacy of the marital bedroom.

       Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), stands for the proposition that unmarried couples, groups and individuals possess the same right to privacy as married couples.

Roe v. Wade (1973), stands for the proposition that there must be a compelling state interest in order to obstruct one’s privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Romer v. Evans (1996), stands for the proposition that class-based legislation may not deprive said class of state protection when there is no legitimate governmental interest.

Arguments Made:

Plaintiff:  The plaintiffs argued that their arrest and subsequent conviction were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as they unfairly targeted homosexuals.

Defendant:  The defendant argued that the law was valid under Bowers v. Hardwick, and that it is protected because Texas is attempting to further a legitimate state interest.

Concurrence/Dissent:  Justice O’Connor concurred, arguing that the court was incorrect in overruling Bowers, but that the Texas law was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It unfairly targets homosexuals, and has a severe and undue impact on their future employment, housing, and family issues.

     Justice Scalia dissented, with Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Thomas joining. He claimed the court overstepped its bounds in overruling Bowers, as the reasoning used could have overruled Roe v. Wade, and did not give stare decisis the same weight as it did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He also objected to the ruling as the same ideals that the Texas law was based on are the ideals that laws against “bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity” are based on. Scalia points out the hypocritical nature of the court in naming protection of heterosexual marriage as “preserving the traditions of society” while at the same time condemning anti-homosexual sodomy laws because they “express moral disapproval.” Scalia argues that the law is not in violation the Equal Protection Clause, as

“[m]en and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to the prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.”

He also cites the courts seemingly “anti-anti-homosexual” bias, and attributes it to the law profession’s culture. Scalia disavows the court’s stance on the pro-homosexual side of the so-called “culture war,” as he believes the court should be a neutral observer.

     Justice Thomas wrote a small dissent, naming the Texas law “uncommonly silly.” He informs us that he cannot find a right to privacy within the Constitution, and therefore must dissent, even if he personally would repeal the law.

Policy Discussion & Implications:  The decision in the case benefits society because it expands the protections for minority groups regarding private and sexual choices. It also reinforces the need for states to pass laws that are vital to a state’s government interest, not simply because the action is morally abhorrent to one group. However, the decision in this case can be detrimental to society because it set a dangerous precedent of overruling new decisions because of court bias. Overall, the decision could lead to a reduction of restrictions on homosexuals and other minority groups, but the court should take more care in deciding cases so that their cases do not need to be overruled 17 years after they are decided.