Substantive Due Process: Sex Toys After Lawrence
Michael J. Hooi, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 507 (2008)
Lawrence’s scope remains debated because the Court justified its holding on the broad notion of liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and did not apply Glucksberg‘s fundamental-rights analysis. Consequently, some read Lawrence broadly, interpreting it as extending beyond the sodomy context and representing a paradigm shift in constitutional law. Others, including the Eleventh Circuit, read Lawrence narrowly, as Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services illustrates.
