Bowers V Hardwick Supreme Court Case Essay -- Michael Hardwick

Bowers v. Hardwick United States Supreme Court Opinion This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick's let the officer into his home, where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner, who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped, Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Conner joined, filing concurring opinions. In Justice White's opinion, or while delivering it, he mentioned a lot of steps that were taken by Michael Hardwick to have his case at the Supreme Court. Justice White also mentioned and compared past court cases that might had relevance or helped make his opinion more valid. The key issue that was focused on by Justice White was whether or not the Federal Constitution grants a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. There were still laws in many states that made sodomy illegal, and have been in place for a very long time. When making his way to presenting his opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice White went through prior cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and many more; because the Court of Appeals and Hardwick claimed that these cases construed the Constitution to grant a right of privacy that stretch forth to homosexual sodomy. After reviewing prior cases and accepting the decisions in those cases, Justice White thought none of the rights announced in the previous cases bears any relevance or relation to Hardwick's claim that it is a cons... ...t it refused to notice the fundamental interest all people have in controlling the nature of their sexual relationships. Due to the activity that was conducted in Hardwick's home, the Fourth Amendment played an important role. The Fourth Amendment was not defined by the Court as being a violation for breaking a person's door, a going through their belongings. It was defined as an invasion of his indefensible right of personal security, personal liberty and personal property. Neither Georgia's law nor Georgia's prosecutor provided insufficient evidence and validity to support the conclusion that homosexual sodomy is considered unacceptable behavior in the state of Georgia. In result of this Court of Opinion, the Court ordered the dismissal of Hardwick's complaint because Michael Hardwick had alleged a constitutional claim well enough to withstand a motion to dismiss.