AssignmentTemplate

.docx

School

University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

370

Subject

Political Science

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by EarlRhinoceros2536

PS 370 Justice in the Law Case Brief #B Don’t forget to follow the “Instructions for Briefing Cases” for all Case Brief Assignments in the “Handouts” section of the Compass Site! Do not change the formatting of this document and do not put your name in the file or the filename! Case Name and Date: Bowers Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al. (1986) Facts of the Case: In Georgia 1982, Michael Hardwick was charged for violating a Georgia statute which criminalized sodomy. Hardwick was found engaging in a consensual homosexual act of sodomy with another adult in the privacy of his own home. After a Georgia police office entered his house with a warrant unrelated to this case. Hardwick then sued the attorney general of Georgia, Michael Bowers, stating that Georgias Law of making sodomy a crime was not valid. He went against the legality of entering his home and the constitutionality of the sodomy statute that was in place. Issue(s): The issues presented in this case are as follows: Does the Constitution protect the rights of homosexuals and their right to engage in sodomy? Rule (of Law): The Due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment. Judgment of the Case (often called the Holding): The Court ruled 5-4, this holding upheld sodomy laws of Georgia. This then classified acts of sodomy illegal. Therefore, the rights of homosexual individuals to be able to engage in sodomy was not protected by Due Process Clause in the Constitution, therefore upholding the charges against Hardwick. The Due process clause does not implicitly protect the rights of private sexual acts. The holding gave the states the right to uphold and create their own laws that deals with such matter.

Rationale for the Judgment: The Court majority relied on the fact that there was no explicit mention of gay individuals' rights to engage in acts of sodomy. Within the case, the Court compared the act of Sodomy to other illegal sexual acts such as incest or doing illegal drugs in one's own home. A reason they decided to allow states to outlaw sodomy, this was due to the implications it could’ve gave for other sex laws if it was allowed. Essentially, the Court did not want to allow others to start questioning other acts and whether or not their acts are protected within the constitution if they were committed in their home, “we are nulling to start down that road”. Your Analysis: Im honestly a bit conflicted on whether or not I agree with the ruling and the reasoning. I think considering the time, which I feel like is when the country started to become more progressive, reasoning in my opinion was not justifiable. I feel like the Court was grasping at straws with their reasoning saying that since its not implicitly stated or extended to homosexual rights within the due process clause. Additionally, basically saying that homosexuals have no fundamental right because if they were to have that right it would set back moral teaching is in my opinion a bit far fetched. I agree with the dissent especially saying that it seemed selective. Justices are supposed to be unbiased but the reasoning seemed selective and almost based off their own personal moral views on homosexuals and their activity. Comparing sodomy between homosexuals to other crimes like incest was to just further push the fact that it is against “traditional morals” which were set by other heterosexual men within the United States. Sources Used: "Bowers v. Hardwick." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140. “Bowers v. Hardwick.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help