際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Jonathan Euceda Lawrence V. Texas

Download as PPT, PDF
marcus hurt
marcus hurt

This document summarizes the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that laws banning private homosexual activity between consenting adults are unconstitutional. It describes how two men were arrested under a Texas law criminalizing homosexual conduct. Their appeal reached the Supreme Court, where the defense argued homosexual couples should have the same privacy rights as heterosexual couples. The prosecution argued states have the right to ban homosexual conduct. The Court ultimately ruled 6-3 that the Texas law violated the right to privacy and equal protection, overturning an earlier decision allowing such bans. This established that states cannot criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults.

Convert to study materialsBETA

Transform any presentation into ready-made study materialselect from outputs like summaries, definitions, and practice questions.

1 of 14
Downloaded 11 times
Lawrence V. Texas Jonathan Euceda
Would it be fair for a state to make a law saying that you cant engage in any intimate acts with your partner because of sexual preference?
It all started when... September 17, 1998: An anonymous tip called the police with a false report saying there was a weapon disturbance at the home. The police investigated the call and found two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, engaged in homosexual activity.
油
Lawrence and Garner were then arrested, held overnight in jail, and charged with violating the Texas Homosexual Conduct" law, which is defined as engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex. They posted $200 bail. On Nov. 20 th 1998, they were convicted before a texas criminal court.
They asked the court to dismiss the charges, saying that under the 14 th amendment, the law was unconstitutional since it doesnt allow deviate sexual intercourse between same sex couples, but did allow it to same sex couples. They also had the right to privacy grounds(due process). The Criminal court rejected their case, but they filed an appeal, and were fined $200 each plus $145 in court costs.
The case finally arrived at the US Supreme Court on July 16 th , 2002, even after it was completely ignored and rejected by the highest appellate court in Texas for criminal matters. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari agreeing to hear the case on December 2, 2002.
The oral arguments were given on March 26, 2002. The final decision was made on June 26, 2003
Main points of case for the defense One of the main points that the defense made was that if opposite sex couples could engage in private sexual acts, why cant same sex couples have the same rights Another key point was that the Texas sodomy law violated the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14 th amendment.
Main points of case for the prosecution The prosecution argued that states should have the right to make the moral judgment that homosexual conduct is wrong. They bought up Bowers V. Hardwick, simply stating that if we said no to homosexual activity once, we can do it again.
Results Voted 6-3 by the justices, this case declared unconstitutional the Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. After this case, states could not prohibit private homosexual activity between consenting adults. This case overruled another case, Bowers V. Hardwick, which has an opposite conclusion.
Most important It was now illegal for states to make laws that arent equal to US citizens based on sex, race, sexual orientation, Etc. Gays in America now had the right to do as they please without the law interfering with their lifestyle.
How would you rule on the case if you were the judge. If I were the judge, I wouldve agreed with the defense and that they should have the right to do as they please, regardless of sexual preference. Its not fair for a state to say that only certain individuals cannot share the same rights as others.
Bibliography www.wikipedia.org http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex

More Related Content

Jonathan Euceda Lawrence V. Texas

  • 1. Lawrence V. Texas Jonathan Euceda
  • 2. Would it be fair for a state to make a law saying that you cant engage in any intimate acts with your partner because of sexual preference?
  • 3. It all started when... September 17, 1998: An anonymous tip called the police with a false report saying there was a weapon disturbance at the home. The police investigated the call and found two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, engaged in homosexual activity.
  • 4. 油
  • 5. Lawrence and Garner were then arrested, held overnight in jail, and charged with violating the Texas Homosexual Conduct" law, which is defined as engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex. They posted $200 bail. On Nov. 20 th 1998, they were convicted before a texas criminal court.
  • 6. They asked the court to dismiss the charges, saying that under the 14 th amendment, the law was unconstitutional since it doesnt allow deviate sexual intercourse between same sex couples, but did allow it to same sex couples. They also had the right to privacy grounds(due process). The Criminal court rejected their case, but they filed an appeal, and were fined $200 each plus $145 in court costs.
  • 7. The case finally arrived at the US Supreme Court on July 16 th , 2002, even after it was completely ignored and rejected by the highest appellate court in Texas for criminal matters. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari agreeing to hear the case on December 2, 2002.
  • 8. The oral arguments were given on March 26, 2002. The final decision was made on June 26, 2003
  • 9. Main points of case for the defense One of the main points that the defense made was that if opposite sex couples could engage in private sexual acts, why cant same sex couples have the same rights Another key point was that the Texas sodomy law violated the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14 th amendment.
  • 10. Main points of case for the prosecution The prosecution argued that states should have the right to make the moral judgment that homosexual conduct is wrong. They bought up Bowers V. Hardwick, simply stating that if we said no to homosexual activity once, we can do it again.
  • 11. Results Voted 6-3 by the justices, this case declared unconstitutional the Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. After this case, states could not prohibit private homosexual activity between consenting adults. This case overruled another case, Bowers V. Hardwick, which has an opposite conclusion.
  • 12. Most important It was now illegal for states to make laws that arent equal to US citizens based on sex, race, sexual orientation, Etc. Gays in America now had the right to do as they please without the law interfering with their lifestyle.
  • 13. How would you rule on the case if you were the judge. If I were the judge, I wouldve agreed with the defense and that they should have the right to do as they please, regardless of sexual preference. Its not fair for a state to say that only certain individuals cannot share the same rights as others.
  • 14. Bibliography www.wikipedia.org http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex