• Login
  • Register
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Documents
  • Activities
  • Activity Tools
    • All Tools
    • Analyzing Documents
    • Discussion Topic
    • Compare and Contrast
    • Zoom/Crop
    • White Out / Black Out
    • Spotlight
    • Finding a Sequence
    • Making Connections
    • Mapping History
    • Seeing the Big Picture
    • Weighing the Evidence
    • Interpreting Data
  • Popular Topics
    • See All
    • National History Day
    • The Constitution
    • Sports: All-American
    • Rights in America
    • American Indians
    • Women's Rights
    • American Revolution
    • The Civil War
    • World War I
    • World War II
    • The Vietnam War
    • 1970s America
    • Congress
    • Amending America
    • Elections
    • What Americans Eat
    • Signatures
    • Nixon and Ford Years
  • Resources
    • Getting Started
    • Document Analysis
    • Activity-Creation Guide
    • Manage Assignments
    • iPad App
    • Presentation Materials
    • Webinars
      • Recorded Webinars
      • Live Webinars
MENU
DocsTeachThe online tool for teaching with documents, from the National Archives National Archives Foundation National Archives

Summary of the Opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick

6/30/1986

Print
Add to Favorites:
Add
Saving document...
Your document has been saved.
Add all page(s) of this document to activity:
1
2
Add only page 1 to activity:
Add only page 2 to activity:
In 1982, Michael Hardwick was arrested for violating Georgia’s anti-sodomy law. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Hardwick’s lawyer argued that Georgia does not have the power to determine "how every adult, married or unmarried, in every bedroom in Georgia will behave." Georgia’s lawyer, Michael Hobbs, declared that the right to privacy did not extend beyond marriage and childrearing. He claimed the state was "adhering to centuries-old tradition and the conventional morality of its people."

In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court upheld anti-sodomy laws in a 5–4 decision. They found no fundamental protection of consensual sodomy and refused to invalidate a law approved by the Georgia electorate. The Court said that "there should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights."

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote a dissent arguing that "depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships" threatens our nation’s values.

Show/Hide Transcript

Transcript

Supreme Court of the United States

Syllabus

Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

No. 85-140.   Argued March 31, 1986 — Decided June 30, 1986

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 3-9.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 3-4.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 4-8.

(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. P. 8.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 8-9.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 9.

760 F. 2d 1202, reversed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, J., filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ. joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined.

This primary source comes from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Full Citation: Syllabus in Bowers v. Hardwick; 6/30/1986; Case File 85-140, O.T. 1985; Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al.; Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2015; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. [Online Version, https://docsteach.org/documents/document/syllabus-bowers-v-hardwick, April 1, 2023]
Return to ResultsReturn

Rights: Public Domain, Free of Known Copyright Restrictions. Learn more on our privacy and legal page.

  • Explore Primary Source Documents
  •  
  • Discover Activities You Can Teach With
  •  
  • Create Fun & Engaging Activities
Follow us on Twitter:twitter
Follow us on Facebook:facebook
Please enter a valid email address

View our webinars:youtube

Get our iPad app:apple
New Documentsshare
New Activitiesshare

The National Archives

DocsTeach is a product of the National Archives education division. Our mission is to engage, educate, and inspire all learners to discover and explore the records of the American people preserved by the National Archives.

The National Archives and Records Administration is the nation's record keeper. We save documents and other materials created in the course of business conducted by the U.S. Federal government that are judged to have continuing value. We hold in trust for the public the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights — but also the records of ordinary citizens — at our locations around the country.
  • All Education Programs
  • Student Visits
  • Distance Learning
  • Professional Development
  • National Archives Museum
  • Presidential Libraries
  • Archives.gov
  • National Archives Foundation




Creative Commons License

Except where otherwise noted, DocsTeach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Primary source documents included on this site generally come from the holdings of the National Archives and are in the public domain, except as noted. Teaching activities on this site have received the CC0 Public Domain Dedication; authors have waived all copyright and related rights to the extent possible under the law. See our legal and privacy page for full terms and conditions.