That is the third of seven introductory articles on the relevance for constitutional regulation of the “born free and equal” clauses, which appeared within the Declaration of Independence and in six out of 12 state constitutions when the federal Invoice of Rights was ratified in 1791, and in 24 out of 37 state constitutions when the 14th Modification was ratified in 1868. The “born free and equal” clause of the Massachusetts Structure of 1780, for instance, provided that:
Article I. All males are born free and equal, and have sure pure, important, and unalienable rights; amongst which can be reckoned the fitting of having fun with and defending their lives and liberties; that of buying, possessing, and defending property; in superb, that of looking for and acquiring their security and happiness.
In my first two articles, I confirmed that the “born free and equal” concept is deeply rooted in American historical past and custom as that phrase is utilized in such appropriately determined circumstances as Washington v. Glucksberg (the fitting to assisted suicide will not be deeply rooted in American historical past and custom), McDonald v. City of Chicago (the Second Modification’s proper to personal a handgun for self-protection extends to the states as a result of it’s deeply rooted in American historical past and custom), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (the fitting to an abortion will not be deeply rooted in American historical past and custom).
On this third introductory article, I wish to look at the applying of the “born free and equal” clauses to a different well-known “proper to privateness” case: 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down so-called “sodomy” legal guidelines banning oral and anal intercourse as unconstitutional. In my final article, I defined why: 1) there is no such thing as a such factor as a constitutional “proper to privateness” of the sort discovered incorrectly in Roe v. Wade, but 2) why the end result in Griswold v. Connecticut, the pivotal 1965 case hanging down legal guidelines banning the usage of contraceptives, is nonetheless right below the privileges or immunities clause, which utilized the “born and free and equal” clauses as modified by Corfield v. Coryell (mentioned beneath) to the states. I’ll apply this evaluation to Lawrence v. Texas to elucidate why I believe that case was rightly determined however not for the explanations given by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his opinion for the court docket.
***
To again up a bit, the seminal case of Corfield v. Coryell, determined in 1823, was dispositive as to the unique that means of the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Modification in accordance with the framers of that modification. In Corfield, Justice Bushrod Washington defined:
The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of residents within the a number of states? We really feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to these privileges and immunities that are, of their nature, elementary; which belong, of proper, to the residents of all free governments; and which have, always, been loved by the residents of the a number of states which compose this Union, from the time of their turning into free, impartial, and sovereign. What these elementary rules are, it will maybe be extra tedious than tough to enumerate. They might, nevertheless, be all comprehended below the next common heads: Safety by the federal government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the fitting to amass and possess property of each form, and to pursue and procure happiness and security; topic however to such restraints as the federal government could justly prescribe for the overall good of the entire [people].
Word that the language in italics makes clear that the 14th Modification protects solely rights deeply rooted in historical past and custom. The language in daring face is a paraphrase of the Massachusetts Structure of 1780’s “born free and equal” clause and is a privilege or immunity of residents of the USA. On the identical time, the underlined passage critically limits the “born-free-and-equal” concept by making all rights “topic however to such restraints as the federal government could justly prescribe for the overall good of the entire [people].” This language marks the origin of what we as we speak name the rational foundation take a look at (and what the Lochner-era Supreme Courtroom wrongly referred to as a reasonableness take a look at).
***
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Courtroom struck down as unconstitutional a Texas sodomy regulation that utilized solely to homosexual and lesbian {couples}. The court docket mentioned in dicta that sodomy legal guidelines making use of to heterosexual {couples} additionally violated the Structure. It did so primarily based on the so-called “proper to privateness” present in Griswold v. Connecticut. Since I argued in my final article that there is no such thing as a such proper, I flip now as to if the choice in Lawrence v. Texas was right below the “born free and equal” clauses and the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Modification as mentioned above and in my two prior articles.
The primary query is whether or not a proper to commit so-called “sodomy,” both by heterosexual or homosexual and lesbian {couples}, is deeply rooted in our nation’s historical past and custom; that’s, whether or not that is a part of the “born-free-and-equal” concept that everybody has the fitting “to get pleasure from life and liberty” and to “pursue and procure happiness and security.” Whereas the fitting to commit sodomy has lengthy been criminalized, freedom amongst dedicated grownup {couples} to get pleasure from sexual relationships in each method is arguably lined by the deeply rooted rights to “get pleasure from liberty” and to “pursue and procure happiness and security.”
This query then turns into what’s the right stage of generality at which to research this concern. Sodomy legal guidelines, whereas of historical classic, have nearly by no means been enforced in trendy occasions, besides in opposition to homosexual and lesbian individuals. Though all 50 states and the District of Columbia had such legal guidelines in 1960, by 2003, when Lawrence v. Texas was determined, 37 out of the 50 states had repealed their sodomy legal guidelines, and these legal guidelines had been nearly by no means enforced by the 13 states which retained them in 2003. Certainly, the one approach to get prosecuted for sodomy in 2003 within the 13 states that retained such legal guidelines was to name the police to come back to your own home in the course of the fee of such an act (which is strictly what occurred in Lawrence).
Beneath these circumstances, one should keep in mind Decide Robert H. Bork’s prophetic phrases in “The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law,” wherein Bork, one of many founding fathers of contemporary originalism, said that: “The world modifications wherein unchanging values [I would say ‘legal texts’] discover their software.” This can be a profound statement for an originalist. It signifies that originalists should not solely take a look at the unique public that means of a textual content when it’s adopted: they need to additionally apply that textual content to a contemporary world which presents new applied sciences and altered circumstances such that the constitutional textual content have to be translated to use to them. Translation happens, for instance, once we apply the First Modification’s safety of freedom of speech and of the press to expressive conduct like flag burning, or to hand-written materials in a personal diary, or in a personal letter to a good friend, or in broadcast motion pictures, radio, tv, and the web the place freedom of expression is constitutionally protected even within the absence of speech – a vocal utterance – or within the absence of a “printing” press.
In “The Tempting of America,” Bork had no hassle discovering that the 14th Modification’s overarching dedication to racial equality, relied upon in Brown v. Board of Training, trumped the unique anticipated software of lots of the 14th Modification’s framers who mistakenly mentioned in congressional debates, in 1868, that racial equality was someway per segregated public faculties and anti-miscegenation legal guidelines. This was clearly not true by 1954, as to public faculties, and by 1967, as to anti-miscegenation legal guidelines.The Supreme Courtroom was due to this fact proper to carry that public college segregation and anti-miscegenation legal guidelines are unconstitutional within the trendy world despite the fact that lots of the members of Congress who voted for the 14th Modification mentioned in any other case.
Precisely the identical factor holds true with respect to sodomy legal guidelines in 2003. In 1868, the framers of the 14th Modification, after they wrote Corfield v. Coryell’s model of the “born free and equal” proper (topic to a rational foundation take a look at) into the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Modification, mistakenly thought that sodomy legal guidelines had been someway per the “born-free-and-equal” concept. As late as 1986’s Bowers v. Hardwick, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Courtroom agreed.
However by 2003, with solely 13 states having sodomy legal guidelines on the books, which they nearly by no means enforced, and a long time after the contraception tablet was legalized on Could 9, 1960, which helped launch a sexual revolution, the rise of the trendy feminist motion, and the homosexual rights motion, it grew to become as tough to sq. sodomy legal guidelines with the “born-free-and-equal” command of the privileges or immunities clause because it was to sq. segregated public faculties and legal guidelines banning inter-racial marriage with the “no race discrimination” command of the 14th Modification.
Thus, when Brown v. Board of Training was determined in 1954, or when Loving v. Virginia was determined in 1967, or when Lawrence v. Texas was determined in 2003, it was not sufficient to depend on authentic anticipated purposes of the framers of the 14th Modification, which, in actual fact, undercut the 14th Modification’s central textual rights. In different phrases, an originalist choose can’t let constitutional rights – even open-ended rights – be overridden by a clearly mistaken, authentic anticipated software of the related textual content.
This nonetheless leaves open the important thing query of whether or not sodomy legal guidelines ought to have been upheld in 2003 below the rational foundation take a look at. As famous earlier, that take a look at additionally originates in Justice Washington’s Corfield v. Coryell opinion, which states that the rights to “get pleasure from liberty” and to “pursue and procure happiness and security” are “topic however to such restraints as the federal government could justly prescribe for the overall good of the entire [people].”
Have been sodomy legal guidelines in 2003, or as we speak in 2026, then “justly prescribed for the overall good of the entire [people]”? The reply is “no” for the explanations given by Justice Byron White in his concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut. There’s a lack of means-ends match to sodomy legal guidelines: they intrude on a extremely private sexual liberty proper for the doubtful function of selling solely intercourse that might result in childbirth. But in a world the place contraceptive use is sort of common (even amongst Catholics, whose church nonetheless formally prohibits it), isolating out the act of sodomy for punishment makes little sense. One may simply as plausibly punish non-procreative intercourse by {couples} utilizing contraception, by heterosexual {couples} the place the girl is post-menopausal, and even masturbation, by particular person women and men. All these actions are sexual acts that don’t result in the potential for childbirth. Is there any rational foundation for criminalizing sodomy however not such different conduct? The reply is “no.”
Punishing the non-procreative sexual acts of gays and lesbians is particularly unfair to such individuals given they don’t have any management over who they’re drawn to. As my good friend Akhil Reed Amar has argued many occasions on this web site, the citizenship clause of the 14th Modification, together with the “born free and equal” clauses, instructions birthright equality, no matter whether or not one is born homosexual or straight. For that reason, the 13 largely unenforced state sodomy legal guidelines on the books flunk the rational foundation take a look at.
***
Whereas I believe Lawrence v. Texas thus reached the fitting consequence in holding sodomy legal guidelines to be irrational and unconstitutional, I imagine Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion is vacuous, for lots of the causes identified by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent. As Scalia made clear, Kennedy’s majority opinion seems to write down John Stuart Mills’ hurt principal from “On Liberty” (that one’s actions ought to solely by restricted a lot as they do hurt to others) into the 14th Modification, which is simply as fallacious as writing Herbert Spencer’s “Social Statics” into that modification because the court docket did within the notorious case of Lochner v. New York hanging down as unconstitutional completely legitimate legal guidelines establishing most working hours.
To be clear: Among the many many legal guidelines that I believe rationally trump a person’s proper to “get pleasure from liberty” and “pursue and procure happiness and security” are legal guidelines criminalizing: 1) polyamory, 2) prostitution, 3) incest, 4) suicide, and 5) the usage of harmful medication and narcotics regulated by the federal government. As Scalia as soon as advised me, and as I completely agree, the people who find themselves disproportionately “harmed” by all six of the actions listed above are ladies, youngsters, and the aged who’re among the many most weak members of society.
Legal guidelines banning these six actions, and doubtless many others, are then topic “to such restraints as the federal government could justly prescribe for the overall good of the entire [people].” The six prison legal guidelines listed above simply move the rational foundation take a look at, in contrast to legal guidelines in opposition to sodomy however which ban no different types of non-procreative intercourse. Individuals, and the Structure, have all the time opted for a regime of “ordered liberty” and never for constitutionalizing John Stuart Mill’s hurt take a look at.
In my subsequent column, I’ll analyze via the lens of the “born free and equal” clause the Supreme Courtroom’s homosexual and lesbian marriage opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, wherein it discovered a constitutional proper to same-sex marriage.