478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Bowers v. Hardwick is a landmark pre-Lawrence substantive due process case in which the U.S.
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment confer a fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy such that Georgia's sodomy statute is unconstitutional as applied to private adult conduct in the home?
Substantive due process protects only those fundamental rights and liberties that are deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Where no fundamental right is implicated, legislation is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and moral disapproval can constitute such an interest. Consensual homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause.
No. The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy, and Georgia's sodomy statute, as applied to consensual homosexual conduct in the home, does not violate the Due Process Clause. The Eleventh Circuit's judgment was reversed.
Bowers entrenched a restrictive approach to substantive due process and validated the use of morality as a rational basis for criminal laws regulating intimate conduct. For nearly 17 years, it provided constitutional cover for state sodomy laws and was invoked to deny broader constitutional protection for same-sex relationships. The case is a staple in constitutional law courses because it illustrates how the framing of the asserted right can determine the outcome, how courts use history and tradition to limit liberty claims, and how doctrinal developments can later displace precedent. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court expressly overruled Bowers, recognizing that adults have a protected liberty interest in private, consensual sexual intimacy and rejecting moral disapproval as sufficient justification for criminalization.