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.

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.

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.

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.

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.