Bowers v. Hardwick
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Overruled
- Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (2003)suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions, p. 2438: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) — Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 195-196.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
760 F. 2d 1202, reversed.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment XIV, Section 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt14.S1.6.3, Amdt14.S1.6.3.1, Amdt14.S1.6.3.6, pp. 2155, 2156, 2166.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)”:
- overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (table of overruled decisions)