Equality with Exceptions? Recovering Lawrence’s Central Holding

Equality with Exceptions? Recovering Lawrence’s Central Holding

Anna K. Christensen

In the eleven years since the Supreme Court handed down itsLawrence v. Texas ruling, state courts have not consistently adhered to the decision’s implicit rejection of laws that regulate based on animus alone. Relying on the Court’s explicit limitation of its decision to cases that do not involve minors, “persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused,” public conduct, prostitution, government recognition of same-sex relationships, and practices not “common to a homosexual lifestyle”-the so-called Lawrence exceptions-a number of states have continued to use archaic antisodomy laws to police conduct they see as morally reprehensible. This Comment examines the interpretation and application of the Lawrence exceptions by state courts, arguing that by maintaining discriminatory prosecution and punishment schemes for conduct deemed to fall within the exceptions, states run afoul of the core antidiscriminatory logic ofLawrence and of the Court’s earlier ruling in Romer v. Evans. My analysis addresses not only whether laws that fall within theLawrence exceptions discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but also whether they enable or invite discrimination along gender- and race-based lines.
While some commentators have addressed Lawrence‘s exceptions for conduct involving minors, potentially coercive or injurious relationships, and, to a lesser extent, the exception for same-sex marriage, there is a lack of scholarship on how the Lawrenceexceptions have affected so-called crime against nature laws-antisodomy laws which often survived in some form after 2003 because of the exceptions identified by the Court. This Comment addresses this gap, using crime against nature laws as an example to suggest that the Lawrence exceptions continue to enable and invite discrimination that contravenes the principles of Lawrence andRomer. Arguing that this trend cuts against the Court’s intent in deciding Lawrence, I draw on an analogue from First Amendment jurisprudence to propose a framework with which courts can adhere to Lawrence‘s antidiscriminatory principles.


More in this Issue

Undoing Race? Reconciling Multiracial Identity with Equal Protection

Lauren Sudeall Lucas The number of multiracial individuals in America, many of whom define their racial identity in different ways, has grown dramatically in recent years and continues to increase. From this demographic shift a movement seeking unique racial status for multiracial individuals has emerged. The multiracial movement is distinguishable from other race-based movements in […]

Justice for Revenge Porn Victims: Legal Theories to Overcome Claims of Civil Immunity by Operators of Revenge Porn Websites

Zak Franklin Revenge porn is a term for the posting of nude images of an unconsenting individual online, frequently by an ex-boyfriend. These photos are often linked to social media profiles, the victim’s home address, and employer. Revenge porn victims have “lost jobs, been forced to change schools, change their names, and have been subjected […]

The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County

Christopher S. Elmendorf & Douglas M. Spencer The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This Article proposes a new, legally defensible approach to coverage based […]

Too Much Information: How Not to Think About Privacy and the Fourth Amendment

David Alan Sklansky just in the sense that the explosive growth of digitized informationrequires rethinking traditional rules of search and seizure, but alsoand more importantly in the sense that a preoccupation with dataflows has led to the neglect of important dimensions of privacy. Thereis no doubt that the control of personal information is an importantvalue […]

Citizens of Empire: Puerto Rico, Status, and Constitutional Change

Sam Erman This Article proposes a new account of how empire became constitutional. When the United States took a deliberate imperial turn in 1898-1899 by annexing Puerto Rico and the Philippines, many jurists thought that the Constitution automatically made these islands proto-states and their residents U.S. citizens with full constitutional protections. Three decades later, this […]