Lawrence and Garner v. Texas

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Charles A. Rosenthal (Harris County Houston, Texas, argued the cause for Texas)
Paul M. Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
02-102
Petitioner: 
Lawrence and Garner
Respondent: 
Texas
Opinion: 
539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102)
Facts of the Case: 

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling.

Question: 

Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?

Conclusion: 

No, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, with whom Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Thomas joined, filed dissents.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Lawrence and Garner, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Wrote a special concurrence
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy