New York v. Uplinger

Background

The State of New York prosecuted several people for loitering in public “for the purpose of engaging, or soliciting another person to engage, in deviate sexual intercourse.” The defendants challenged the statute’s constitutionality, and the New York Court of Appeals struck the law down, treating it as tied to an earlier decision invalidating a consensual sodomy law.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court had agreed to review the case but, after briefing and argument, concluded it should not decide the merits. The Justices found the state court’s opinion open to different readings, noted that it relied on the prior New York decision that this Court was not asked to revisit, and pointed out a conflict between the local prosecutor representing the State and the New York Attorney General. Because the lower opinion might rest on state-law grounds or be inseparable from the earlier case, the Court dismissed its review as improvidently granted and declined to rule on the constitutional claims.

Real world impact

The dismissal leaves the New York Court of Appeals’ invalidation in place for now, but it is not a final ruling by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the loitering law. Enforcement and legal uncertainty about the statute continue while lower courts or the State may pursue further proceedings. The case raised concrete claims about vagueness, overbreadth, free speech, equal protection, and privacy, but those federal questions were not decided here.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens agreed with dismissing the case and explained why the Court’s case-selection rule matters; Justice White (joined by three others) dissented, arguing the Court should have addressed the merits.