How State Courts Apply Lawrence v. Texas in Civil Contexts: A Mixed-Methods Content Analysis of Two Decades of Cases

Abstract

This Article presents empirical analyses of civil state court decisions applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. After tracing key historical and legal developments leading up to the Lawrence decision’s decriminalization of sodomy on substantive due process grounds in 2003, the Article utilizes both quantitative and qualitative content analyses of ninety-one civil cases citing Lawrence over the nearly two decades since it was decided. Results indicate that judicial decisions tended not to rely on Lawrence significantly in the context of most business and employment law cases. Courts that applied on Lawrence in family law disputes—especially those involving same-sex couples, often construed the case narrowly at first, but broadened their interpretations after Obergefell v. Hodges brought marriage equality to the United States. The largest category of cases in the study were those raising LGBTQ+ civil rights claims. Statistically significant geographic differences were found relating to how courts used Lawrence in those cases, with judges in northeastern and Pacific coastal states having applied the precedent broadly, while judges in southern and midwestern states tending to have applied the case more narrowly. The implications of findings are explored generally and within the specific context of the constriction of substantive due process rights in the wake Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.