This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Texas argues that it has the right to criminally punish any unmarried adult couple for engaging in consensual sexual intimacy that the State disapproves of.
According to Mr. Smith, the petitioners argue that the Texas law fails rational‑basis scrutiny, citing Romer, Cleburne, Moreno, and Eisenstadt as precedents where similar statutes were struck down.
According to Texas, texas asserts that, under the equal‑protection argument, the State may set bright‑line moral standards that prohibit certain kinds of activity.
Background and question before the Court
According to Texas, the case concerns a Texas statute that criminalizes consensual sexual intimacy between unmarried adults.
According to Mr. Smith, the petitioners contend that the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause because it lacks a rational basis.
According to Justice, the Court asked whether the precedent set in Bowers v. Hardwick applies to the present case.
According to Justice, the Court also inquired about whether public perception of homosexual acts has changed.
What each side argues
Texas
Texas claims the right to criminally punish any unmarried adult couple for consensual sexual intimacy that the State disapproves of.
According to Texas, texas asserts that the State may set bright‑line moral standards that prohibit certain activities under the equal‑protection analysis.
Petitioners (John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner)
According to Mr. Smith, the petitioners argue that the Texas law fails rational‑basis scrutiny, citing prior cases where similar statutes were struck down.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked: “We said the opposite in Bowers, didn’t we?”
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist prompted Mr. Smith and Mr. Rosenthal to speak.
Justice asked: “Why do you think that the public perception of homosexual acts has not changed?”
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist concluded the oral argument: “The case is submitted.”
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 296e44239a0105fc1129-r1-06bfc57f1c47b156.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.