| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | TX criminalizes homosexual sodomy. |
| Posture: | Unknown. |
| Issue: | Is the TX statute valid? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | The statute furthers no legitimate state interest that can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. |
| Reasoning: | We're overruling Bowers. The states are doing away with these
laws, and there's been no detrimental reliance on that case.
The fact that the majority traditionally thinks this practice is immoral is not sufficient reason to uphold a law against it. Individual private decisions of married persons are a part of the liberty that's protected by the constitution. |
| Dicta: | O'Connor (concurring): the statute doesn't criminalize heterosexual
sodomy-- it treats the same conduct differently based solely on
sexual orientation.
Scalia (dissenting): The logic that we should overrule Bowers because it's so intensely divisive applies to Roe as well. Substantive due process doesn't help here: an "emerging awareness" doesn't establish a fundamental right, and this is far from an emerging awareness anyway. Plus, emerging things aren't "deeply rooted." And the usual parade of horribles. |