8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: − +
→Holding of the Majority, by Justice Kennedy
Previous case law had held that regulations against sodomy were legal.<ref>''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186. Justice Brennan sharply dissented from this case, in a dissenting opinion in many ways more liberal than the holding the Court ultimately accepted in ''Lawrence''.</ref> ''Lawrence'' specifically overruled ''Bowers.''
Previous case law had held that regulations against sodomy were legal.<ref>''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186. Justice Brennan sharply dissented from this case, in a dissenting opinion in many ways more liberal than the holding the Court ultimately accepted in ''Lawrence''.</ref> ''Lawrence'' specifically overruled ''Bowers.''
== Holding of the Majority, by Justice Kennedy ==
== Opinion ==
On ''certiorari'' to the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found the law to be unconstitutional on the grounds of [[substantive due process]], writing an opinion which was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. Kennedy defined Lawrence's rights under the Constitution at a high level of abstraction, arguing that the Texas statute violated the right to intimate conduct in a relationship. Such a definition of the right (accomplished without using the word "privacy," which seems the obvious doctrinal hook to [[Griswold v. Connecticut|''Griswold'']]) avoided defining sodomy itself as a specific & fundamental right, and instead simply stated that the state had no right to intrude upon intimate relationships.
On ''certiorari'' to the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found the law to be unconstitutional on the grounds of [[substantive due process]], writing an opinion which was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. Kennedy defined Lawrence's rights under the Constitution at a high level of abstraction, arguing that the Texas statute violated the right to intimate conduct in a relationship. Such a definition of the right (accomplished without using the word "privacy," which seems the obvious doctrinal hook to [[Griswold v. Connecticut|''Griswold'']]) avoided defining sodomy itself as a specific & fundamental right, and instead simply stated that the state had no right to intrude upon intimate relationships.