Lawrence v. Texas
Facts
Police officers in Harris County, Texas, responded to a reported weapons disturbance at a private residence. Upon entering the home of John Lawrence, the officers discovered Lawrence and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaged in consensual sexual conduct.
Both men were arrested and charged under a Texas statute that criminalized certain intimate sexual conduct between members of the same sex. The law did not prohibit the same conduct between opposite-sex couples.
Lawrence and Garner were convicted in state court and fined. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, arguing that it violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Texas courts upheld the convictions, relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld a similar law criminalizing homosexual conduct.
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether a state law criminalizing private, consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
The Due Process Clause protects the liberty of adults to engage in private, consensual intimate conduct without government intrusion. Moral disapproval alone is not a sufficient justification for criminalizing such conduct.
Application
The Court began by reconsidering its prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which had framed the issue narrowly as whether there is a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. The Court rejected that framing, emphasizing that the case instead concerned a broader liberty interest in personal autonomy and intimate decision-making.
The Court recognized that the Constitution protects certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including decisions relating to marriage, family, and intimate relationships. These protections extend to private, consensual sexual conduct between adults.
Applying this principle, the Court found that the Texas statute intruded into the most private sphere of human life—the home—and sought to control the personal relationships of consenting adults. The law did not further a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify such an intrusion.
The Court also noted that the statute was discriminatory in nature, as it applied only to same-sex conduct. However, the decision was grounded primarily in substantive due process rather than equal protection.
Importantly, the Court explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, concluding that it had been wrongly decided. The Court emphasized that historical condemnation of certain conduct does not justify its continued criminalization, particularly when it infringes on fundamental aspects of personal liberty.
Ultimately, the Court held that the Constitution protects the right of adults to engage in private, consensual conduct without government interference.
Holding
Yes. A state law criminalizing private, consensual sexual conduct between adults violates the Due Process Clause.
Court
This case was decided by the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Texas statute and overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.
Exam Notes
- Overrules Bowers v. Hardwick
- Expands substantive due process (privacy/autonomy rights)
- Protects private, consensual adult conduct
- Moral disapproval alone ≠ sufficient state interest
- Key step toward Obergefell v. Hodges
- Often tested as part of privacy rights evolution (Griswold → Roe → Casey → Lawrence)
- Not framed as a strict scrutiny case—focus is on liberty + dignity
- Important distinction: private vs. public conduct