Lawrence v. Texas

Audience

As with most Supreme Court cases, the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas was written for several audiences. Its immediate purpose, of course, was to resolve the dispute between the parties before the Court—here, the two men convicted of deviate sexual intercourse under Texas's homosexual conduct law and the state attorney who prosecuted them. Thus, the opinion is written for and to the parties and their lawyers; nevertheless, it was certainly intended to reach a much broader audience than John Lawrence, Tyrone Garner, and the various counsels. Indeed, the authoring justices wrote their opinions to endure, addressing the broader legal community, members of the public, and, in some important ways, each other.

The majority intended to make clear to practicing judges, lawmakers, and prosecutors that convictions under state laws criminalizing private consensual conduct were no longer tenable. Justices Kennedy and O'Connor spoke directly to judges and advocates in limiting the scope of their opinions. For example, both warn advocates and judges that their decisions should not be read to support same sex-marriage, with O'Connor going so far as to announce that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a “legitimate state interest” despite the fact that the legitimacy of bans on same-sex marriage was not before the Court.

The various opinions also contain conversations among the justices. Scalia criticizes O'Connor's departure from stare decisis, the principle that drove her opinion in the Casey abortion case. Scalia offers scathing and direct derision of the majority's failure to place the case in an established due process framework by declaring whether the right at issue is fundamental or not.

The opinions also speak to the public at large. With the exception of Thomas's supplemental dissent, all of the opinions are ripe with sound bites. Both Kennedy and O'Connor show some sensitivity to the gay and lesbian community through their choice of language. For example, Kennedy's characterization of individuals as “persons in homosexual relationships” contrasts directly with the Court's use of the term “homosexuals” in the Bowers decision, suggesting recognition of the fact that people's sexual choices do not define their identities. Justice Thomas actually expressly offers something of an apology to the gay and lesbian community for his vote, stating in his brief dissent that he would oppose anti-sodomy laws if he were given the opportunity as a legislator.