← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Lawrence v. Texas

No. 02-102 SCOTUS · Decided Teaching/Historical SCOTUS
Argued: Mar 26, 2003 Decided: Jun 26, 2003


The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

The Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex sodomy, holding it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Facts

Facts

Texas police arrested Lawrence and Garner in Lawrence's home after responding to a weapons disturbance report and discovering them engaging in same-sex sexual conduct. They were charged under Texas Penal Code § 21.06, which criminalized same-sex sodomy. Lawrence was convicted and fined $200. The Texas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, distinguishing Bowers v. Hardwick.

The Issue

Issue

Do criminal laws targeting consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private violate the Due Process Clause's guarantee of liberty? Does Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which upheld state sodomy laws, remain valid precedent?

The Rules

Rule

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty of adults to engage in private consensual sexual conduct; states may not criminalize this conduct based on moral disapproval alone. Bowers v. Hardwick was wrong when decided and must be overruled; the right to privacy protects intimate decisions made by adults in private relationships.

The Application

Analysis

Lawrence and Garner's arrest under Texas Penal Code § 21.06 exemplified the exact liberty interest the Due Process Clause protects: two consenting adults engaging in intimate sexual conduct within the privacy of a home. The state's sole basis for the criminal statute was moral disapproval of same-sex sodomy. An impermissible ground for criminalizing private consensual conduct among adults. The Court found that applying the statute to criminalize Lawrence's conduct in his own home violated fundamental liberty because the government cannot restrict personal autonomy in intimate matters absent a legitimate reason beyond enforcing majoritarian morality. Texas's attempt to distinguish this case from general sodomy laws by targeting only same-sex conduct made the moral disapproval rationale even more apparent, demonstrating that the statute served no purpose other than to enforce a particular moral viewpoint.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

The Court held 6-3 that Texas's sodomy statute violated the Due Process Clause. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion recognized a liberty interest in intimate sexual conduct and overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, establishing that government cannot criminalize private consensual sexual conduct between adults. The decision significantly expanded constitutional protection for LGBTQ+ rights and personal autonomy.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Filed -
CL StatusActive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
StatusActive
Filed (CL) -
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-744ab3d6 Aug 8, 2026

Cited By (5)

  • Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita SCOTUS

    A case concerning whether a health plan's reimbursement limits for outpatient dialysis treatment discriminate against…

  • Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA SCOTUS

    Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA is a case where the Supreme Court addressed standing and regulatory issues rela…

  • Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita SCOTUS

    A case concerning whether a health plan's reimbursement limits for outpatient dialysis treatment discriminate against…

  • Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA SCOTUS

    Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA is a case where the Supreme Court addressed standing and regulatory issues rela…

  • Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita SCOTUS

    Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita (20-1641)

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support