The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, March 31, 1986
Decision: Monday, June 30, 1986
Issues: Privacy, Miscellaneous
Categories: criminal, due process, freedom of association, privacy, sexuality

Advocates

Michael E. Hobbs (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.

Question

Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?

Conclusion

No. The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices. Justice Byron White argued that the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937) or when they are "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Court held that the right to commit sodomy did not meet either of these standards. White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road of illegitimacy.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Bowers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Voted with the minority, joined Blackmun's dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Marshall
Voted with the minority, joined Blackmun's dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Brennan
Wrote a dissent
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent, joined Blackmun's dissent
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
Powell
Wrote the majority opinion
White
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Burger
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Full Opinion by Justice Byron R. White

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140/>
(last visited ).