## Facts

- Alabama enacted Ala. Code § 13A-12-200.2, criminalizing the commercial distribution of any device designed or marketed primarily for stimulation of human genital organs in exchange for pecuniary value.
- The statute targeted only commercial sales; it did not ban possession, use, or gratuitous distribution, and it permitted purchases outside Alabama and importation for personal use.
- The law did not reach other sexual products not designed or marketed primarily for genital stimulation, and it exempted sales for bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purposes.
- Vendors and adult users of sexual devices filed a federal suit seeking to enjoin enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- The district court initially enjoined enforcement on rational-basis grounds; on an earlier appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that public morality supplied a rational basis, but remanded for further consideration of an as-applied fundamental-rights theory.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, recognized a fundamental right to sexual privacy including the use of sexual devices in private consensual adult relationships, and again enjoined enforcement.
- The Attorney General of Alabama appealed from the renewed injunction and summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause protects a fundamental right to sexual privacy broad enough to include adult use of sexual devices in private consensual relationships.
2. Whether, absent a fundamental right, Alabama’s prohibition on the commercial sale of sexual devices is constitutional under rational-basis review, including reliance on public morality.
3. Whether *Lawrence v. Texas* requires recognition of the asserted right or displaces the traditional approach for identifying new fundamental rights.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment and vacated the injunction against enforcement.
- The court held that the asserted liberty interest—use of sexual devices—was not a fundamental right protected by substantive due process.
- The court concluded that the statute survived rational-basis review because promoting public morality is a legitimate governmental interest supporting regulation of commercial sales.
- The court declined to interpret *Lawrence v. Texas* as recognizing a broad constitutional right to sexual autonomy that would invalidate the statute.

## Legal Principles

- A claimed substantive due process right must be carefully described and shown to be deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty before it is treated as fundamental.
- When no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated, legislation regulating commercial activity is reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny.
- Promoting and preserving public morality may constitute a legitimate state interest sufficient to satisfy rational-basis review for regulation of commercial distribution.
- *Lawrence v. Texas* does not, without more, compel recognition of a new fundamental right encompassing all private consensual sexual choices or related consumer products.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Alabama’s ban on the commercial sale of specified sexual devices did not burden a fundamental right and was rationally related to the state’s interest in public morality, so the statute was upheld and the district court’s injunction was reversed.


Williams v. Att’y Gen. of Ala., 378 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004)