Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Bowers v. Hardwick

(1986)

Supreme Court of the United States - 478 U.S. 186

tl;dr:

No right to homosexual sodomy.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Bowers v. Hardwick

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bowers v. Hardwick case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingBowers v. Hardwick case brief facts & holding

Facts:A Georgia law defined sodomy as “committing or submitting to...

Holding:The federal constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bowers v. Hardwick case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Bowers v. Hardwick | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice White
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case concerns the constitutionality of a Georgia law that criminalizes private sodomy between consenting adult males. The respondent, Hardwick, argued that the law violated his fundamental rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, stating that the sodomy statute did not violate the fundamental rights of homosexuals. The Court rejected the claim that the Constitution grants a right of privacy that extends to homosexual sodomy, distinguishing it from previous cases that dealt with personal autonomy. The Court acknowledged that previous cases have recognized substantive rights protected from government regulation or prohibition, but it was not willing to recognize a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bowers v. Hardwick case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Chief Justice Burger
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The article discusses the absence of a constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy. It traces the prohibition's origins to religious and moral traditions and its criminalization in Roman and English law. The author argues that granting fundamental rights to homosexual sodomy would contradict centuries of moral teachings. The case is about whether the state has the legal power to make the law in question, and there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the state from doing so.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Justice Powell
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Justice Powell agrees with the Court that private, consensual acts of sodomy are not protected under the Due Process Clause. However, he believes that a prison sentence of up to 20 years for such conduct, as allowed by the Georgia statute in question, could violate the Eighth Amendment. The Georgia statute treats a single act of sodomy as a felony comparable to serious crimes such as aggravated battery, first-degree arson, and robbery. However, since the respondent has not been convicted or sentenced, and has not raised the Eighth Amendment issue, it is not currently before the Court. The lower court's decision is not mentioned.

Dissenting opinion, author: Justice Blackmun
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion argues that the Georgia statute violates the constitutional right to privacy and freedom of intimate association. The Court failed to consider broader principles of privacy in relation to the Fourth Amendment's protection of the home. The right to conduct intimate relationships in the privacy of one's home is at the heart of the Constitution's protection of privacy. The petitioner's argument that the statute criminalizing private, consensual sexual activity is necessary to protect public health and welfare is not supported by evidence. The Court agrees that the conduct prohibited by the statute interferes with the state's right to maintain a decent society but notes that the length of time a majority has held its convictions cannot exempt legislation from the scrutiny of the Court.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bowers v. Hardwick case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The article discusses the constitutionality of a law in Georgia that criminalizes sodomy. According to the dissenting opinion, the law is not biased towards any particular sexual orientation and applies equally to both married and unmarried couples. The focus of the Court is to preserve individuals' freedom to make significant decisions that impact their future and that of their family, considering history, tradition, and the federal system's restrictions. The State cannot prohibit an individual's liberty to engage in non-reproductive, sexual conduct within the privacy of their bedroom, whether they are married or unmarried heterosexual adults. The Court suggests that the Georgia statute is justified by the majority's presumed belief that homosexual sodomy is unethical and unacceptable, but this belief has not been expressed by the Georgia electorate. The law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, and unless the Court pronounces the law constitutional, it can't rely on the work product of the Georgia Legislature to support its decision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bowers v. Hardwick case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bowers v. Hardwick case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Bowers v. Hardwick

Chat for Bowers v. Hardwick
brief-819
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.