U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Lawrence vs Texas - Assignment Example

Lecturer U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Lawrence v. Texas Introduction Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 of 2003, represents a significant ruling of the United States Supreme Court. In the decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the Texas Sodomy Law, and by extension struck down the sodomy laws in other thirteen states. The Supreme Court decision, therefore, made the sexual activities of same sex legal in the entire territory of the United States of America. The Supreme Court also overturned a previous appeal ruling, of the 1986 same sex sexual activity ruling in the case Bowers v. Hardwick. Lawrence significantly overruled Bowers, by illustrating that it narrowly viewed liberty interests (Carpenter 23). a) Impact of Lawrence v. Texas on the Relationship between Morality and Law Supreme Court’s View on the majority Opinion The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter joined the majority opinion. The Supreme Court explained that homosexuals have a liberty privilege which is protected. The liberty interest of homosexuals entails private sexual activities. The sexual and moral choices of homosexuals are entitled to adequate constitutional protection. The majority opinion also held that moral disapproval is not legitimate justification for the laws that illegalize sodomy in Texas. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that Lawrence and Garner, the petitioners, are constitutionally entitled, to respect in terms of their privacy. The Texas state cannot control their actions or ignore their existence, through illegalizing or criminalizing their private sexual activities (Lithwick 107). Justice Anthony Kennedy reviewed the Supreme Court’s assumption made in the case, Bowers v. Hardwick, using the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Burger, that condemning homosexuality is deeply rooted in the ethical and moral standards of the Judeao-Christian. Kennedy reviewed the trends of laws that illegalized certain sexual activities, without consideration of gender of individuals involved. Kennedy cited recommendations of the Model Penal Code since 1955, European Court of Human Rights 1981 decision, and the 1963 Wolfenden Report (Lithwick 121). Kennedy agreed with the dissenting views of Justice Stevens as illustrated in the Bowers v. Hardwick. He illustrated that the decision in the case should not be a binding precedent in the current cases; and that the case should be overruled. The majority decision explained that adult consensual conduct, the intimate sexual matter under discussion, was an important component protected by the due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Kennedy further illustrated that constitution, supreme law of the land, safeguards personal decisions in terms of; marriage, contraception, child rearing, family relationships, procreation, and homosexuality. The Supreme Court decision held that, legitimate state interests are not furthered through intrusion in the private lives of people. Therefore, the Supreme Court reviewed the Texas anti-Sodomy legislation as illegal and unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the ruling’s focus of the private sexual private conduct which is consensual: the Lawrence v. Texas case does not entail minors, does not entail public conduct, and does not amount to prostitution (Lithwick 132). Scalia Dissenting Views A dissent was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Clarence Thomas and the Chief justice William Rehnquist joined in the dissent. Scalia objected the Supreme Court’s ruling to revisit the Bowers v. Hardwick. In the dissent, they illustrated the many rulings of lower courts that depended on Bowers v. Hardwick. The result of revisiting the case, may lead to reconsidering the decisions of the lower courts. The dissenting views illustrated that the procedure for overturning Bowers can be used to also overturn the Roe v. Wade, which the majority justices in the Lawrence case upheld recently in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Richards 79). Justice Antonin Scalia additionally criticized and questioned majority opinion for not giving stare decisis adequate respect that three majority justices insisted on in the case Casey. Justice Sandra O’Connor’s concurrence illustrated that the dissent of Scalia’s disse4nt explains that cases such as Romer v. Evans ensure stare decisis effect; the sodomy laws of Texas cannot pass scrutiny in Equal Protection Clause, despite the rational basis review type applied (Tribe 65). In the writing, Scalia illustrated that if the Supreme Court is not ready to validate laws according to moral choices, as applied in Bowers, state laws prohibiting same sex marriage, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, obscenity, bigamy, adult incest, masturbation, and fornication would not be sustainable. Scalia wrote that the opinion of the Supreme Court is a product of the law profession culture, which has supported the homosexual agenda that is directed at removing the moral threshold that is traditionally based on homosexual activities (Richards 87). He explained that the court has sided in the culture debate, hence disregarding its role as neutral observer responsible for democratic engagement rules. He cited; the criminalization concern of sodomy by the majority opinion leads to homosexual discrimination; and hence evidence that the views of most Americans were ignored. He wrote that the court favors the homosexual culture supported by the law profession that does not consider the attitudes of the culture is not “mainstream.” Scalia finally illustrated that the majority introduction of the new “constitutional right”, illustrates that the Supreme Court is impatient with democratic change. Laws and Morality My opinion on this debate is that laws should be based on morality. This is because morality and law are connected. Law is basically not what is illustrated in the legislations. If the statutes are inadequately moral, then it has minimal authority, and hence not law. For the man made law to be effective, it must adhere to the higher moral law. I view unjust laws as untrue laws, and therefore should not be obeyed. Morality promotes justice and well being; hence legislations should be key components of morality. Laws that defend basic human rights like privacy, illustrates that legislations are part of morality. The Lawrence v Texas case illustrates that the Supreme Court’s decision adhered to basic human rights and hence morality (Tushnet 57). The judges illustrated that the fourteenth amendment must be adhered to; through ensuring constitution protection regardless of sex, race, nationality, race or creed. It is morally acceptable to safeguard privacy of consenting adults who engage in sexual activity. The law profession culture specifically believes in protection of the rights of all Americans. b) Analysis of the Case Case Proceedings in the Court Structure John Lawrence, a 55 years old gay medical technologist and Tyron Garner, a 31 years old gay acquaintance; were arrested September 17, 1998, and charged with performing “deviate sex.” Joseph Quin, the police officer responsible for the arrest, illustrated that he witnessed Lawrence and Garner performing deviate sexual activity of anal sex. The arrestees stayed in Jail overnight. The next day during hearing they pled, to the homosexual conduct charge, not guilty (Tribe 16). Lambda Legal, provided the gay rights advocates for the case. The gay rights advocates directed Garner and Lawrence to plead no contest in the case. Lawrence and Garner, on November 20, 1998, waived their trial rights by pleading no contest. Justice of the Peace Parrot Mike, found them guilty and gave them a fine of $125 with an aim of initiating a constitutional challenge (Tushnet 69). This fine was charged based on agreement with prosecutor. The appeal must be conducted at the Texas Criminal Court; hence, the attorneys requested for dismissal of the case on grounds of equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants’ attorneys claimed the unconstitutionality of the law because it illegalized sodomy in same sex relationships, and not in the heterosexual sexual relationships. They also illustrated the right to privacy. December 22, 1998 saw the defendants pleading no contest, and the Judge Sherman Ross fining both of them $200 (Tushnet 70). Texas Fourteenth Amendment Court of Appeal produced a three judge panel; and the case was heard on 3rd November, 1999. Their ruling was given on 8th June, 2000, declaring the Texas law unconstitutional. Justice John Anderson and the Chief Justice Paul Murphy illustrated that the law didn’t adhere to Equal Rights Amendment (1972) to the Texas Constitution; which prohibits discrimination through sex, national origin, race and creed (Carpenter 63). The Court of Appeals, on 15th March, 2001, reversed the three judges ruling, and it upheld the constitutionality law 7-2. This denied equal protection arguments. The Attorneys for the defendants requested the highest Texas appellate court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, to revise the case. The appellate court denied the request on 17th April 2002. Lambda Legal attorney’s declared the ruling an abdication of the judicial responsibility. Lambda Legal attorneys filed a petition on 16th July 2002, in the Supreme Court. The court, on 2nd December 2002, accepted to hear case. Lambda Legal presented sixteen amicus curiae briefs, so as to support their brief. The Supreme Court, on 26th June 2003, made ruling that reviewed the Texas statute. Five judges illustrated that it violated the due process guarantees. The sixth judge, Justice Sandra O’Connor, illustrated it violated the equal protection guarantees (Carpenter 196). This decision ruling overruled the case Bowers v. Hardwick, and hence; invalidated related sodomy legislations in other thirteen states (Carpenter 65). Approaches of Supreme Court Rulings The Supreme Court can make rulings through various ways: for instance, unanimous decisions, divided decisions, very divided decisions, per curium decision, and last words. The unanimous decisions are at times referred to as the opinion of the court. The Chief Justice assigns this ruling to each and everyone in the court. This is normally applied when the court wants to speak as one. Divided decisions entail combination of votes which are greater than 5. In this decision, the Chief Justice gives the ruling to one justice representing the majority. Divided decisions are referred to as majority opinion because it illustrates the majority views of the court. Very divided decisions occur when the court experiences challenges during decision making. This illustrates that the judges cannot agree on a single decision. Per curiam decision, entails numerous decisions which are generally brief, unanimous and unsigned. The rulings are of inadequately significant cases, and cases being referred to lower courts for re-ruling. Last words, is used during the ruling announcement day. The court assembles and the riling is announced by Chief Justice. The Chief Justice just asks for comment by the opinion writer. Dissenters are thereafter allowed to comment (Tribe 209). In the Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court ruled through the divided decision approach. This is because there was majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. Justice Anthony Kennedy was given the task of writing the majority opinion. Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul, Ruth Bader, and David souter joined the majority opinion. The court ruled that homosexuals have the protected liberty of participating in sexual activity privately. Justice Scalia was responsible for writing the dissent. The Chief Justice and Justice Clarence joined the dissent. Scalia did not agree with the decision to review Bowers: explaining that the lower courts used the Bowers ruling to divide cases. Precedent in Lawrence v. Texas In common law, a precedent entails legal case that establishes a rule and principle that a judicial institution like courts, can use when ruling subsequent cases having relevant facts, issues or opinions. This case uses the binding precedent (Richards 81). Binding precedent must be followed by the applicable legal institution. The lower courts are required to adhere to the law findings and rulings, by higher courts. Bothe the higher and the lower courts must be within the appeal path relevant to them. In the case the Supreme Court reviewed sodomy laws in Texas and also sodomy laws of thirteen other states. This ensured that same sex sexual conduct became legal in all the U. S. states and territories. The lower courts in the states are expected to adhere to the decision made by the Supreme Court I this case, because it is a binding precedent. Conclusion The Court of Appeal explained that consensual and intimate sexual activities are a liberty component that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, through the substantive due process. Lawrence v. Texas invalidated related laws in the entire United States of America that illegalized sodomy among consenting adults in private, regardless of the participants’ sex. Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003 attracted a lot of public attention and a huge number of “friends of the court,” amici curiae, briefs were filed. The outcome of the Supreme Court case was widely celebrated by the advocates of gay rights. The gay rights advocates explained that greater legal advances will result, due to the favorable court ruling. Works Cited Carpenter, D. "The Unknown Past of Lawrence v. Texas". Michigan Law Review. 2003. Print. Lithwick, D. "Extreme Makeover: The Story Behind the Story of Lawrence v. Texas". The New Yorker. 2012. Print. Richards, D. The Sodomy Cases: Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. 2009. Print. Tribe, H. "Lawrence v. Texas: The Fundamental Right That Dare Not Speak Its Name". Harvard Law Review. 2003. Print. Tushnet, M. I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. 2008. Print. Read More