Bowers v. Hardwick

Background

A Georgia man was charged after alleged consensual sexual activity with another adult man in his home. The local prosecutor did not present the case to a grand jury, and the man sued in federal court challenging the state law that criminalized sodomy. A federal district court dismissed his complaint; the Court of Appeals reversed, saying the statute violated a privacy right and required strict judicial scrutiny.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals and held that the Federal Constitution does not create a fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in sodomy. The majority emphasized historical laws and long-standing moral disapproval of sodomy, and concluded that those traditions weigh against recognizing a new fundamental right. The Court therefore reversed the lower court’s judgment and left the Georgia law in place under ordinary review rather than demanding the highest level of judicial protection.

Real world impact

The decision leaves in place state criminal statutes that ban consensual sodomy and allows states to enforce or repeal those laws through their own political and legal processes. The Court said it was not deciding whether those laws are wise; it only ruled that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee the claimed right. The opinion notes that many States still had sodomy statutes and that sentencing ranges can be long in some States.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Burger and Powell joined parts of the opinion; Powell warned that long prison terms raise a separate Eighth Amendment concern. Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented, arguing the case involved privacy in the home, possible equal protection and other constitutional claims, and that the complaint should not have been dismissed.