Lawrence v. Texas (in part)

E92213

United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case landmark civil rights case

Lawrence v. Texas (in part) is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, expanding constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
Lawrence v. Texas	11
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)	2
Georgia sodomy statute	1
Lawrence v. Texas (in part) canonical	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T752722 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Lawrence v. Texas (in part)]

A. Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
B. City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
C. Reed v. Reed
Reed v. Reed is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that for the first time struck down a law for discriminating on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. Loving v. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia is a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, affirming marriage as a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Target entity description: Lawrence v. Texas (in part) is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, expanding constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

A. Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
B. City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
C. Reed v. Reed
Reed v. Reed is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that for the first time struck down a law for discriminating on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. Loving v. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia is a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, affirming marriage as a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (50)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark civil rights case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights law ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ
citation	123 S. Ct. 2472 ⓘ 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 ⓘ 539 U.S. 558 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
constitutionalClause	Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Due Process Clause
constitutionalProvision	Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Fourteenth Amendment
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2003-06-26 ⓘ
dissentBy	Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
effect	decriminalized consensual same-sex intimacy between adults nationwide ⓘ expanded constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals ⓘ invalidated sodomy laws in the United States ⓘ
geographicScopeOfEffect	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
holding	laws criminalizing private consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex are unconstitutional ⓘ the Texas Homosexual Conduct law violates the Due Process Clause ⓘ the state cannot demean the existence or control the destiny of persons by making their private sexual conduct a crime ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
legalIssue	constitutionality of sodomy laws ⓘ liberty under the Due Process Clause ⓘ right to privacy ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
overruledCase	Bowers v. Hardwick ⓘ linked to: majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick
parties	John Geddes Lawrence ⓘ State of Texas ⓘ linked to: Texas Tyron Garner ⓘ
precedentialStatus	binding on state courts regarding sodomy laws ⓘ binding precedent on lower federal courts ⓘ
recognizedRight	autonomy in personal intimate decisions ⓘ liberty of adults to engage in private consensual sexual conduct ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	right to privacy in intimate relationships ⓘ substantive due process liberty interests ⓘ
stateOfOrigin	Texas ⓘ
subjectMatter	LGBTQ+ rights ⓘ criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct ⓘ
term	October Term 2002 ⓘ
yearDecided	2003 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited