NCJ Number
39277
Journal
Iowa Law Review Volume: 62 Issue: 2 Dated: (DECEMBER 1976) Pages: 568-590
Date Published
1976
Length
23 pages
Annotation
REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURT DECISION IN DOE V COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND (1975) WHICH REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS.
Abstract
THE DOE RULING WAS RECENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE US SUPREME COURT WITHOUT OPINION. THIS COMMENT EVALUATES THE SOUNDNESS OF THE DOE DECISION AND ITS SUMMARY AFFIRMATION BY THE SUPREME COURT, PRIMARILY IN LIGHT OF THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY THROUGH SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCES OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY AS IT RELATES TO SEXUAL RELATIONS IS REVIEWED. THE ARGUMENTS DEVELOPED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN DOE ARE ANALYZED. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY PROTECTS PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL MALE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS IS FULLY DISCUSSED, EXAMINING BOTH THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE PRIVACY OF THE HOME. STATE INTERESTS WHICH MIGHT BE DEEMED SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING TO JUSTIFY INTERFERENCE WITH THESE MANIFESTATIONS OF PRIVACY THROUGH CRIMINAL SODOMY LAWS ARE ASSESSED ALONG WTH THE CONTRARY STATE INTEREST IN DECRIMINALIZING HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES. FINALLY, THE EFFECTS OF SODOMY LAWS ON CONSENTING ADULT HOMOSEXUAL ARE DISCUSSED. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT DOE WAS IMPROPERLY DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THAT THE SUPREME COURT ERRED IN NOT REVIEWING THAT DECISION ON ITS MERITS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...EB