Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (5)
- Garner (Tyron) (4)
- Gays (4)
- Homosexual Conduct (4)
- Lawrence (John) (4)
-
- Lawrence v. Texas (4)
- Sodomy laws (4)
- LGBTQ (3)
- Law and sexuality (3)
- Courts (2)
- Crimes (2)
- Substantive due process (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Affirmative Action (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Exclusions (1)
- Grutter v. Bollinger (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- History (1)
- Interrogations (1)
- Ohio v. Roberts (1)
- Police conduct (1)
- Public education (1)
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Lawrence V. Texas And Judicial Hubris, Nelson Lund, John O. Mcginnis
Lawrence V. Texas And Judicial Hubris, Nelson Lund, John O. Mcginnis
Michigan Law Review
The republic will no doubt survive the Supreme Court's decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, to invalidate laws against private, consensual sodomy, including those limited to homosexual behavior. Such laws are almost never enforced, and the rare prosecutions for such acts are necessarily capricious. So the principal direct effect of the Court's decision is likely to be extremely limited, and largely salutary: a few individuals will be spared the bad luck of getting a criminal conviction for violating laws that are manifestly out of step with prevailing sexual mores. Nor are we likely to see anything like the intense political …
The Unknown Past Of Lawrence V. Texas, Dale Carpenter
The Unknown Past Of Lawrence V. Texas, Dale Carpenter
Michigan Law Review
On the night of September 17, 1998, someone called the police to report that a man was going crazy with a gun inside a Houston apartment. When Harris County sheriff's deputies entered the apartment they found no person with a gun but did witness John Lawrence and Tyron Gamer having anal sex. This violated the Texas Homosexual Conduct law, and the deputies hauled them off to jail for the night. Lawyers took the men's case to the Supreme Court and won a huge victory for gay rights. So goes the legend of Lawrence v. Texas. Do not believe it. …
Sexual Orientation And The Paradox Of Heightened Scrutiny, Nan D. Hunter
Sexual Orientation And The Paradox Of Heightened Scrutiny, Nan D. Hunter
Michigan Law Review
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court performed a double move, creating a dramatic discursive moment: it both decriminalized consensual homosexual relations between adults, and, simultaneously, authorized a new regime of heightened regulation of homosexuality. How that happened and what we can expect next are the subjects of this essay. The obvious point of departure for an analysis of Lawrence is its decriminalization of much sexual conduct. Justice Scalia began this project with his dire warning that "[s]tate laws against bigamy, samesex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . sustainable only in …
Surviving Lawrence V. Texas, Marc Spindelman
Surviving Lawrence V. Texas, Marc Spindelman
Michigan Law Review
The lesbian and gay communities have reacted to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas - striking down state sodomy laws on Due Process grounds - with unbridled enthusiasm. Lawrence has variously been praised as an unmitigated victory for lesbian and gay rights, a turning point in our community's history, and the moment when we have gone from second-class political outcasts to constitutional persons with first-class rights. Obviously, something remarkable happened in Lawrence. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court declared that John Geddes Lawrence and Tyrone Gamer, who had been convicted under Texas's sodomy …
The Journey From Brown V. Board Of Education To Grutter V. Bollinger: From Racial Assimilation To Diversity, Harry T. Edwards
The Journey From Brown V. Board Of Education To Grutter V. Bollinger: From Racial Assimilation To Diversity, Harry T. Edwards
Michigan Law Review
Fifty years ago, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court confronted a precise and straightforward question: "Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?" The Court's answer was precise and straightforward: "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs ... are, by reason of the segregation complained of, …
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
For several centuries, prosecution witnesses in criminal cases have given their testimony under oath, face to face with the accused, and subject to cross-examination at trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the procedure, providing that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.’’ In recent decades, however, judicial protection of the right has been lax, because the U.S. Supreme Court has tolerated admission of outof- court statements against the accused, without cross-examination, if the statements are deemed ‘‘reliable’’ or ‘‘trustworthy.’’ …