Read/review the following resources for this activity:
This assignment is comprised of 2 parts, the first of which is due this week. Part II will be due in Week 7.
In Part I this week, choose a case from your state that involves civil rights or civil liberties that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. If your state does not have a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court, choose a civil rights case from another state for which the United States Supreme Court issued a decision.
Here is a brief description of civil rights and civil liberties: Civil rights refers to equal social opportunities under the law. It gives you these freedoms such as the right to vote, the right to public education, or a fair trial, among other things, regardless of your wealth or race. Civil liberties mean freedom of religion, equal treatment and due process under the law, and the right to privacy.
You should be able to go online and look up your state and famous cases decided by the Supreme Court. For example, Brown v Board of Education (1951) started in Topeka, Kansas and ended up in the Supreme Court of the United States. Another example would be Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada (2020) that started in Nevada and ended up the United States Supreme Court. A good source of information about cases decided by the United States Supreme Court is www.scotusblog.com. Other sources can be researched online using search terms for “civil rights cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Be sure to use a case actually decided by the United States Supreme Court, and not a case decided by your state’s supreme court or a different court. A case that is still pending before the United States Supreme Court should not be used. If you are unsure, please contact your Professor BEFORE you pick your case and submit the assignment as this is a significant part of your overall grade.
Research your court case and write an outline of the case that you will be using to prepare a presentation, which will either be a narrated PowerPoint, a Kaltura Video, or some other format as approved by your instructor. If you are unsure, then verify the presentation format with your instructor before starting work on this assignment.
This week’s assignment should include (a) summary of the case; (b) a case outline; and a summary.
In one or two paragraphs, provide a general overview of the case that serves as a snapshot of what the case is about and how it ended up in your state high court. A summary is using your words to write a brief history of the case. Do not give your opinion or your interpretation but stick to the facts only.
Your court case outline should include:
What was the resulting impact of the ruling? How did the citizens of your state benefit from it? Was this a good decision?
Civil Rights Case
On September 17, 1998, a citizen filed a weapon disturbance reporting coming from Lawrence’s house. On arrival, the police found Lawrence having consensual sex with Tyrone Garner. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and charged for “deviate sexual intercourse” (Gilkis, 2018). Texas had a sodomy law that criminalized sexual acts, whether oral or anal, between two consenting adults of the same sex. Lawrence and Garner were found guilty of violating Texas’ sodomy law and fined $125 each. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a law organization that advocated for homosexuals’ rights, appealed the case. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case in December 2002.
The police, on September 17, 1998, found Lawrence and Garner engaging in consensual sex while investigating a report of weapon disturbance in Lawrence’s home. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and charged with violating Texas’ Sodomy Law, which prohibited sexual activity between same-sex individuals (Weinmeyer, 2014). They both pleaded no contest (admitted guilt) and were later fined $125 for violating the state statute. The state courts relied on Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) in their rulings. The Bowers v. Hardwick case concluded that Georgia’s sodomy law was constitutional.
The Lambda organization appealed the case to the Court of Appeal, Texas. The Court of Appeal, Texas, argued that the sodomy law violated the Equal Rights Amendment, hence the ruling was unconstitutional. However, on March 15, 2001, the same Court of Appeal reversed this ruling with a vote of 7-2, denying these equal rights protection arguments.
Lawrence and Garner’s defense lawyers took the case to the state’s highest appellate Court (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals), maintaining the argument that the state’s sodomy law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Weinmeyer, 2014). Unfortunately, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied their request. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, and on December 2, 2002, the Supreme Court officially took over the case.
Texas’ defense team based its arguments mainly on moral opinions and religious conservatism. The defense team argued that sodomy was immoral, sinful, and odious behavior regardless of the identity of the individual engaging in the practice (Spindelman, 2003). The team also held that homosexual sodomy was immoral because it was non-procreative.
In contrast, Lawrence’s and Garner’s defense team based their arguments on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process clause. The Due Process Clause protects people’s private decisions relating to procreation, child rearing, education, marriage, family relationship, etc. Under the Due Process Clause, Lawrence and Garner had the freedom to engage in private conduct without the government’s intervention or interference. Lawrence and Garner’s defense team also argued that the Texas law violates the equal protection clause, which prohibits states from refusing to provide equal protection to all persons under their jurisdiction. The Texas Law in question stated that, “a person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” Because this clause disregards the gender of the person involved in the activity, Lawrence and Garner’s defense team argued that it was discriminative.
The Supreme Court needed to consider the following:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lawrence and Garner. It held that Lawrence and Garner were free to engage in private conduct without state interference (Weinmeyer, 2014). According to the Court, homosexuals like Lawrence and Garner are entitled to respect for their private lives, and the state cannot demean their existence by criminalizing private homosexual conduct (Spindelman, 2003). The Court also held that deeming a practice immoral is not a sufficient reason to prohibit it, and decisions concerning physical intimacies, including those not intended for procreation, are liberties protected by the Due Process Clause. Therefore, the Texas law prohibiting certain sexual conduct between persons of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause.
Justice Kennedy delivered the Court’s decision, and Justice Souter, Steven, Breyer, J, and Ginsburg concurred. Justice O’Connor partially concurred with the decision. She agreed that the Texas sodomy law discriminated against homosexuals but defended the state’s right to interfere with certain intimate acts. Justice O’Connor believed that the Court should have based the decision on the equal protection clause, not the privacy right embedded in the Due Process Clause. Justice Scalia, Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas filed dissenting opinions. Three judges voted for the defendant (Texas), and six voted against the defendant (Gilkis, 2018).
The Supreme Court’s decision caused a monumental breakthrough for the gay community. It empowered gay activist movements, invalidated all laws prohibiting consensual sodomy, and steered a new era of acceptance, respect, and equal treatment of gays in America (Kane, 2003). Gilkis (2018) also indicates that the ruling in Lawrence et al. v. Texas laid the groundwork for legalizing same-sex marriages. The decision was good because it promoted equality and empowering minority groups.
Gilkis, K. B. (2018, September 9). Lawrence v. Texas. Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas
Kane, M. D. (2007). Timing matters: Shifts in the causal determinants of sodomy law decriminalization, 1961–1998. Social Problems, 54(2), 211-239.
Spindelman, M. (2003). Surviving Lawrence v. Texas. Mich. L. Rev., 102, 1615.
Weinmeyer, R. (2014). The decriminalization of sodomy in the United States. AMA Journal of Ethics, 16(11), 916-922. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/decriminalization-sodomy-united-states/2014-11
A Bloated Bureaucracy (ANSWERED)
The Roles of Congress (ANSWERED)
Representation in Congress (ANSWERED)
As a renowned provider of the best writing services, we have selected unique features which we offer to our customers as their guarantees that will make your user experience stress-free.
Unlike other companies, our money-back guarantee ensures the safety of our customers' money. For whatever reason, the customer may request a refund; our support team assesses the ground on which the refund is requested and processes it instantly. However, our customers are lucky as they have the least chances to experience this as we are always prepared to serve you with the best.
Plagiarism is the worst academic offense that is highly punishable by all educational institutions. It's for this reason that Peachy Tutors does not condone any plagiarism. We use advanced plagiarism detection software that ensures there are no chances of similarity on your papers.
Sometimes your professor may be a little bit stubborn and needs some changes made on your paper, or you might need some customization done. All at your service, we will work on your revision till you are satisfied with the quality of work. All for Free!
We take our client's confidentiality as our highest priority; thus, we never share our client's information with third parties. Our company uses the standard encryption technology to store data and only uses trusted payment gateways.
Anytime you order your paper with us, be assured of the paper quality. Our tutors are highly skilled in researching and writing quality content that is relevant to the paper instructions and presented professionally. This makes us the best in the industry as our tutors can handle any type of paper despite its complexity.
Recent Comments