How did Bowers v. Hardwick differ from Lawrence v. Texas?

The primary difference between Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) lies in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of constitutional liberty and the right to privacy regarding consensual sexual conduct.

In Bowers, the Court upheld a Georgia sodomy law, narrowly framing the issue as whether the Constitution confers a fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in sodomy. The majority concluded that no such right existed, as it was not deeply rooted in the nation's history or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Consequently, the Court applied the "rational basis" test, finding that the law was justified by the electorate's moral beliefs.1

In Lawrence, the Court explicitly overruled Bowers, declaring it incorrect when decided and at the time of the 2003 ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, rejected the narrow framing used in Bowers, asserting that the case concerned the broader liberty and autonomy of individuals to engage in private, consensual sexual conduct. The Court affirmed that the Constitution protects the right of adults to establish personal bonds without unwarranted government intrusion into their homes, thereby invalidating state laws that criminalized such intimacy.2