Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama: Does a Constitutional Right to Sexual Privacy Exist?
Kathleen Anne Ward, 31 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 1 (2008)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
Part I of this article will examine Alabama’s Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act. This section will also analyze the facts and holding of the Williams case. Part II will explore the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the protections it provides. A discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment is integral to any analysis of privacy rights, because the courts have used this amendment to establish that individuals have a constitutional right to privacy which deserves the highest protection. This section will also review United States Supreme Court precedent regarding the right to privacy under the substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part III will argue that the Eleventh Circuit failed to take into account the Supreme Court’s long history of recognizing an individual’s right to privacy and personal autonomy in the home. Finally, this section will show that in deciding Williams, the Eleventh Circuit ignored the Supreme Court’s most recent holding in Lawrence v. Texas, which acknowledged that under the Fourteenth Amendment individuals are free to engage in private sexual conduct in the exercise of their personal liberty. This personal liberty right includes “constitutional protection [of] personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.”
Full Text available online.
