|
| |
| | Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
 | | On April 13, 2001, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was petitioned to hear the case; the Court, the highest appellate court in Texas for criminal matters, denied review. | | | The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in the case. | | | The Lawrence court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
(3299 words)
|
|
| |
| | Lawrence v |
| | Nevertheless, I agree with the Court that Texas' statute banning same-sex sodomy is unconstitutional. | | | Indeed, Texas itself has previously acknowledged the collateral effects of the law, stipulating in a prior challenge to this action that the law "legally sanctions discrimination against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law," including in the areas of "employment, family issues, and housing." State v. | | | [¶ 43] The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. |
|
http://www.danpinello.com/Lawrence.htm
(9666 words)
|
|
| |
| | FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code |
| | The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. | | | Nevertheless, I agree with the Court that Texas' statute banning same-sex sodomy is unconstitutional. | | | Indeed, Texas itself has previously acknowledged the collateral effects of the law, stipulating in a prior challenge to this action that the law "legally sanctions discrimination against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law," including in the areas of "employment, family issues, and housing." State v. |
|
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
(13707 words)
|
|
| |
| | Sodomy Laws (Lawrence v. Texas) by JMcQ |
| | Texas, the state in which they were arrested, is one of the precious four that have a specific anti-homosexual sodomy law in place, and prescribes a $200 fine, jail time, and registration as sex offenders. | | | Lawrence and Garner plead no contest to the charge, but they contest that the law currently in place is unconstitutional, as they believe that it violates equal protection under the law, as has been in place since the 14th Amendment. | | | The difference here is in the enforcement of the law; while the law also banning heterosexual sodomy is technically present on the books in 8 states, it is almost wholly homosexual groups that are being persecuted under these laws. |
|
http://home.columbus.rr.com/mmcquis/neufutur/Rants/sodomy.html
(873 words)
|
|
| |
| | PsycLAW: Lawrence v. Texas |
| | The case was then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals who refused to hear the case. | | | The issues before the Court involve whether there is a legitimate privacy right of homosexuals that is violated by the statute and whether there is a violation of equal protection principles because the law only addresses this conduct between same sex couples. | | | However, the Fourteenth Court then reheard the case en banc and upheld the statute, reinstating the ban on homosexual sodomy. |
|
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/lawrence-v-texas.html
(321 words)
|
|
| |
| | Randy E. Barnett on Supreme Court & Sodomy on National Review Online |
| | Texas to be constitutionally revolutionary, however, the Court's defense of liberty must not be limited to sexual conduct. | | | We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. | | | Justice Kennedy examined the conduct at issue to see if it was properly an aspect of liberty (as opposed to license), and then asked the government to justify its restriction, which it failed adequately to do. |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-barnett071003.asp
(2642 words)
|
|
| |
| | Lawrence v. Texas Sodomy Law Protest |
| | Texas is one of 13 remaining states that still have sodomy laws on the books; in the past 30 years, many states' sodomy laws were either repealed by state legislation or else invalidated by state courts. | | | The plaintiffs contend that the sodomy law should be struck down not only on privacy grounds, but also because it violates the Equal Protection Clause by permitting sexual intimacy only for heterosexual couples and therefore turns queers into a sexless second class with less rights than other citizens. | | | The Court ruled 5-4 against Hardwick, a major milestone in history of queer liberation. |
|
http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/resyst/sodomy
(468 words)
|
|
| |
| | Lawrence v. Texas |
| | The Court thus emphatically held that the Texas sodomy law violated the right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | | | Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, in which he argued that states should be able to make a moral judgment against homosexual conduct and have that enforced through law. | | | The men were arrested and convicted under a Texas law that prohibits "deviate sexual intercourse." They were fined $200. |
|
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex.html
(604 words)
|
|
| |
| | In These Times The Supremes and Gay Rights |
| | The court recognized that a line of cases beginning with Griswold v. | | | But in a larger sense it was a moral argument in which the court identifies a liberty (not directly mentioned in the constitution) that it believes is fundamental to human autonomy. | | | In the United States, this notion was enunciated in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. |
|
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=275_0_1_0_C
(1343 words)
|
|
| |
| | SSRN-Lawrence v. Texas and Judicial Hubris by Nelson Lund, John McGinnis |
| | Notwithstanding the availability of plausible arguments based on precedent to invalidate the Texas law, the Lawrence Court chose instead to rely on a series of utterly untenable arguments and analytically empty bombast. | | | Second, we show that Professor Randy Barnett fails in his effort to provide Lawrence with a foundation in the Constitution because he misinterprets the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. | | | Finally, we outline the case for repudiating the Griswold-Roe-Lawrence line of cases and for using the Glucksberg test to return the Court's substantive due process jurisprudence roughly to where it stood as a result of Carolene Products. |
|
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=534343
(554 words)
|
|
| |
| | Medill - On the Docket |
| | The Court sided with Oregon in a capital case involving the introduction of alibi evidence during sentencing (Oregon v. | | | The Court also took a new case over when inmates can file civil rights suits challenging their prison conditions (Jones v. | | | On Mon., Feb. 27, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in about 150 cases seeking review. |
|
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/?...&-recordID=33121&-search
(431 words)
|
|
| |
| | Lawrence v. Texas |
| | 02-102, where the court ruled that Texas’ anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. | | | In effect, the Court overruled itself, having decided back in 1986, in Bowers v. | | | ‘In a brief order with little elaboration, the court vacated the 17-year sentence imposed in 2000 on the defendant, Matthew Limon, and returned the case to the Kansas courts “for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. |
|
http://www.rbvincent.com/lawrence.htm
(1359 words)
|
|
| |
| | CNN.com - Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law - Nov. 18, 2003 |
| | In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported. | | | Religious conservatives quickly criticized the decision, and in a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court "has taken sides in the culture war." Scalia -- joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas -- said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." (The dissent) | | | The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex. |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy
(986 words)
|
|
| |
| | News & Politics |
| | Evans (which struck a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting gay rights laws), ruling that the Texas law singles out a class of people for disparate treatment based on animosity alone, and thus fails the most minimal tests used to judge the constitutionality of a law under the Equal Protection Clause. | | | Others would have preferred the court rule on the grounds of equal protection, stating clearly that no state may pass a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation based on moral sentiments alone (as does the Texas "Homosexual Conduct Law" at the center of this case). | | | "Were we to hold the (Texas) statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause," he explained, "some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants." |
|
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2003/06/26/1
(743 words)
|
|
| |
| | FindLaw - U.S. Supreme Court - March 2003 Cases |
| | Does defense counsel in a capital case violate the requirements of Strickland v. | | | Texas Court of Appeals - 14th District, Filed: March 15, 2001 | | | Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law - which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples - violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? |
|
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/march.html
(1762 words)
|
|
| |
| | Lawrence v. Texas |
| | Texas Court Won’t Bar Adoptions - June 23, 1999 | | | Texas Sodomy Case on Firm Legal Ground - July 23, 2002 | | | Texas Court Upholds Conviction of Two Men for Consensual Sex at Home: Lambda Promises to Appeal - March 15, 2001 |
|
http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm
(8088 words)
|
|
| |
| | Docket for 02-102 |
| | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Texas | | | Brief amici curiae of Texas Legislators, et al. | | | Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of United States, et al. |
|
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/02-102.htm
(663 words)
|
|
| |
| | Lawrence v. Texas revisited |
| | Texas; the Court opinion text is at this link. | | | A major argument raised in this article, public health [particularly HIV], has been largely ignored in most of the litigation regarding sodomy laws (it was not even mentioned in the 1986 Bowers v. | | | A recent issue of The World and I[1] seriously challenged the somewhat libertarian majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. |
|
http://www.doaskdotell.com/lawrence.htm
(1018 words)
|
|
| |
| | Brooklyn Law School: News |
| | A prevailing theme throughout the discussion was the manner in which the same-sex marriage question should be framed, whether in terms of the definition of marriage or the role of government. | | | Moderator, Kristina Wertz ’04, presented the panel of speakers with a series of questions focusing on the legal ramifications of Lawrence in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, as well as other relevant legal and public policy arguments. | | | She argued that the Supreme Court in Lawrence had not applied a traditional constitutional standard to the question, but had declared the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional on other grounds. |
|
http://www.brooklaw.edu/news/homepage_news/lawrencevtexas.php
(505 words)
|
|
| |
| | George Mason University School of Law: Faculty: Faculty Publications |
| | Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary, E.J. Dionne Jr. | | | Patent Litigation and Strategy, cowritten with the Honorable Paul R. Michel and Raphael V. Lupo, West Publishing Co. (1999). | | | Patent Litigation and Strategy Supplement (WEST Publishing Co. 2002), co-authored with the Honorable Paul R. Michel and Raphael V. Lupo. |
|
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/publications.php
(11347 words)
|
|
| |
| | 2003 - Free Encyclopedia |
| | June 26 - U.S. Supreme Court rules sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. | | | January 15 - The Supreme Court hands down its decision in Eldred v. | | | June 23 - U.S. Supreme Court upholds affirmative action in university admissions in Grutter v. |
|
http://www.wacklepedia.com/2/20/2003.html
(3041 words)
|
|
| |
| | NUSL - Faculty Profile: Dan Williams |
| | Texas and the Enemy-combatant Cases." Call me nuts, but I'm trying to thematically tie together the Supreme Court's decision protecting same-sex sodomy and the developing jurisprudence involving so-called "enemy combatants" in our so-called war on terror. | | | I think these disparate areas of constitutional law, when treated together, tell us something important about the role of dignity in promoting the public sphere in society. | | | I've got a bit more refining to do on another article, "Misplaced Angst: Another Look at Consent-search Jurisprudence," where I explore the philosophical underpinnings of consent in Fourth Amendment analysis. |
|
http://www.slaw.neu.edu/faculty/p_williams-d.htm
(872 words)
|
|
| |
| | [No title] |
| | THE OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LEGAL HISTORY (Barbara Black, Lawrence Friedman & Laura Kalman, eds.) |
|
http://www.randybarnett.com/texts.htm
(1357 words)
|
|
|
