ABSTRACT
The Court’s opinion in Lawrence is the modern-day equivalent of Griswold, as Justice Kennedy relied on an ambiguous, penumbra-like exposition regarding liberty to invalidate a law banning sodomy between same-sex couples.1 Although the Court reached the
right outcome, the reasoning unnecessarily expanded the Court’s already-unworkable unenumerated rights jurisprudence with language that was far broader than necessary to invalidate the statute, and with dicta that eschewed even the pretense of judicial restraint.
