Comparative Law: Reasons to Study Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003)

Value of knowing other legal systems Model: Borrow techniques –Expand the number of “laboratories” –Utilitarian: find methods, language, exceptions Perspective: Appreciate own –Recognize policies, history, purposes –Like studying foreign language (even dead ones) Discover: universal truths –Test results of different rules –Intellectual curiosity Power: compelled by reciprocity, trade, empire –International trade/ relations demands –US judges traveling overseas –Prop up foreign legal regimes

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Discussion Scalia-Breyer

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Background Texas criminalizes homosexual sodomy –Petitioner charged and convicted –Petitioner challenges conviction –State defends statute Sources –Texas statute –US Constitution (EP and DP clauses) –Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Review under DP Review B v H –issue was “fundamental right” –Issue should be “liberty” Stare decisis not locked in stone Sources –Ga statute –US Sup Ct –[nothing] –US Sup Ct

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Consider history Longstanding history against homosexuals –Pre-colonial experience –“homosexuality” new notion –American laws (20 th C) Only 9 states Some abolish Sources –English statute / English cases –US law review –US state statutes US state statutes US state cases

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Moral stance –Court not moral codifier –Judeo-Christian tradition unclear –History not the only interpretive source –MPC did not criminalize Sources –US Sup Ct –US law review –US Sup Ct –ALI (scholars)

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Antisodomy Ignored in US –Not all states adopt prohibition –Ignored in many states Gone elsewhere –Repealed in UK, after recommendation –Invalidated in Europe (Council of Europe) Sources –US state statutes –US Sup Ct –Committee (Scholars) / UK Parliament –ECHR

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Deficiencies BvH –25 states before, now only 13 –No prosecutions in Texas Sources –US state statutes –Texas case

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Shift in moral code Supreme Court cases –Casey (abortion rights upheld) –Romer (Colorado can’t withdraw protections) Criticism of BvH –US –Europe –Other countries Sources –US Sup Ct –US state cases –ECHR (Dudgeon-UK) –Mary Robinson amicus

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Scalia dissent New liberty interest –not fundamental right –Can’t base on criticism Court relies wrongly –Casey (anti-abortion) –Roe criticized –BvH followed Sources –US Sup Ct –US law reviews, books –US state cases

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Scalia dissent Texas policy BVH history OK –Criminal laws –203 prosecutions –MPC resisted Looking to foreign law – meaningless dicta Sources –Texas statute –US state statutes –US law review –US Sup Ct

Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Scalia dissent Rational basis –Court not take sides in culture wars –Congress has not acted –“nothing against homosexuals” - Texas –Path to gay marriage Sources –US Sup Ct –Cong legislative history –[nothing] –Canada case / Wash Post article