Sodomy laws in the United States no longer apply to private, consensual sex between adults. The Supreme Court settled that in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), ruling 6-3 that criminalizing such conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment. More than a dozen states, however, still carry sodomy statutes in their criminal codes, and people convicted under the old laws can still face consequences today.
What the Law Means by Sodomy
American criminal codes historically used vague labels like “crimes against nature” or “buggery” to cover a wide range of sexual conduct. Those terms swept in oral and anal sex regardless of the genders involved, and often extended to sexual contact with animals. The statutes drew no meaningful distinction between consensual and non-consensual behavior; the acts themselves were the crime.
Most states eventually replaced that archaic language with more specific definitions tied to the type of physical contact. Modern codes that still reference sodomy generally define it as oral or anal penetration, including penetration with a foreign object. Federal law, for example, defines “sexual assault with an object” as the use of any hand, finger, object, or other instrument to penetrate the genital or anal opening of another person.1Legal Information Institute. 34 USC 30309 – Definitions What matters in current law is not the type of act, but whether everyone involved actually consented.
What Lawrence v. Texas Settled
In 2003, the Supreme Court held that intimate, consensual sexual conduct between adults is protected by the substantive due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for a six-justice majority and overruled the Court’s prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, stating that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”2Legal Information Institute. Lawrence v Texas
The Court rejected the idea that historical moral disapproval, standing alone, justifies government intrusion into private intimate relationships. The ruling also separated the constitutional protection of sexual privacy from formal marriage: whether a relationship is legally recognized or not, the liberty to choose it without criminal prosecution belongs to the adults involved.3Constitution Annotated. Sexual Activity, Privacy, and Substantive Due Process
The practical effect was immediate. Every state law criminalizing consensual sodomy between adults became unenforceable. Police could no longer arrest, and prosecutors could no longer charge, people for private sexual conduct with other consenting adults.2Legal Information Institute. Lawrence v Texas
Non-Consensual Conduct Is Still a Crime
Lawrence protects consensual conduct and nothing more. It does not shield anyone who uses force, threats, or coercion, or who targets a person incapable of consent. Every state retains criminal statutes covering non-consensual sexual acts, and many still use the anatomical definitions that once appeared in sodomy laws. The conduct is not what the law punishes now; the absence of consent is.
Forced oral or anal penetration is typically a serious felony, charged as sexual assault or aggravated sexual battery, with the most severe classifications reserved for cases involving a weapon, serious injury, or a young child. Conviction triggers mandatory sex offender registration in every state.
The law also presumes certain people cannot consent regardless of appearances. Under federal military law, a person is incapable of consenting when they cannot understand the nature of the conduct or are physically unable to decline or communicate unwillingness; a person who is asleep, unconscious, or mentally incompetent cannot consent as a matter of law.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 920 – Art 120 Rape and Sexual Assault Generally State laws apply similar logic with varying language.
States That Still Have Sodomy Laws on the Books
More than a dozen states still carry criminal sodomy provisions in their official codes. These “zombie laws” range from misdemeanors with modest fines to felony classifications with theoretical prison sentences of five to ten years. Some use the old “crimes against nature” phrasing. Others target same-sex conduct specifically while ignoring identical heterosexual conduct.
None of these laws can be enforced against consenting adults. Lawrence made enforcement constitutionally impossible. They remain on the books because state legislatures have not formally repealed them, whether through inertia, political reluctance to hold a recorded vote, or active opposition from lawmakers who resist repeal as a symbolic matter.
The harm is not purely theoretical. Someone reading a state’s criminal code without knowing the constitutional backdrop may think they face criminal exposure. More concretely, the formal existence of these statutes can create complications in background checks, professional licensing decisions, and immigration proceedings where the text of a state’s code is taken at face value.
Several states have moved recently to clean up their codes. Minnesota repealed its consensual sodomy provision in 2023, removing both the statutory definition and the penalty clause that had authorized up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine for voluntary acts between adults.5Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 609.293 Maryland has repealed its common law crime of sodomy.6Maryland General Assembly. Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 3-321 (2025) – Crime of Sodomy In July 2025, the Massachusetts Senate passed legislation to repeal centuries-old sodomy laws on a unanimous 40-0 vote, sending the bill to the House.7General Court of Massachusetts. Senate Scrubs Offensive Language from State Law, Acts to Repeal Discriminatory Statutes
Repeal does not solve every problem. Even after a state removes the statute, anyone convicted under the old law may still carry that conviction on their record. Legislative repeal does not automatically erase criminal records, remove people from sex offender registries, or undo collateral consequences that attached at the time of conviction.
Military Law
The Uniform Code of Military Justice treated consensual sodomy as a standalone criminal offense under Article 125 for decades, independent of civilian constitutional protections. Service members could face court-martial for private, consensual acts that were legal in any civilian jurisdiction after Lawrence.
Congress closed that gap in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, signed into law on December 26, 2013, which repealed the consensual sodomy provision from Article 125.8U.S. Army. Legislation Changing UCMJ, Especially for Sex Crimes Article 125 now covers kidnapping, with no remaining provision criminalizing consensual sexual conduct.9Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. Amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice Since 1950 (2025 Edition) Non-consensual sexual offenses in the military are prosecuted under a restructured Article 120.
If You Were Convicted Before Lawrence
People convicted of sodomy offenses before 2003, or before their state independently decriminalized the conduct, may still face serious ongoing consequences. The conviction stays on the record even though the underlying act is no longer a crime.
Sex Offender Registration
In some jurisdictions, a sodomy conviction triggered mandatory placement on the sex offender registry, even when the conduct was entirely consensual between adults. Removal is possible but rarely automatic. The process generally requires filing a petition with the court that handled the original case, paying administrative fees, and meeting specific eligibility criteria. If a petition is denied, waiting periods of several years may apply before refiling.
Security Clearances
Federal regulations governing security clearance adjudication expressly state that sexual orientation may not be used as a basis for denial. However, “sexual behavior of a criminal nature,” whether or not the person was prosecuted, can raise a security concern.10eCFR. 32 CFR 147.6 – Guidance D – Sexual Behavior Mitigating factors include the passage of time, absence of similar conduct since the incident, and evidence that the behavior no longer creates a risk of coercion or exploitation. A decades-old consensual sodomy conviction is unlikely to defeat a clearance on its own, but it can trigger additional scrutiny.
Immigration
Immigration law treats most sex offenses as crimes involving moral turpitude, a classification that can affect admissibility to the United States, eligibility for naturalization, and vulnerability to deportation. A historical sodomy conviction, even for conduct no longer criminal, may still count against a noncitizen in removal proceedings or on a citizenship application. Anyone in that situation should consult an immigration attorney before assuming the conviction no longer matters.
Professional Licensing
Many licensing boards require applicants to demonstrate “good moral character,” a standard often vaguely defined and inconsistently applied. A conviction on an applicant’s record, including one for an offense that has since been decriminalized, can trigger additional review, requests for evidence of rehabilitation, and delays. Outcomes vary significantly even within the same profession.
How to Clear a Historical Conviction
The paths are limited and vary by jurisdiction, but three general routes exist.
- Legislative relief. Some states have enacted provisions specifically allowing people convicted under categorical sodomy bans to seek retroactive removal from sex offender registries or expungement of their records. This is the most effective mechanism but the least common.
- Court petition. In most places, the person convicted must file a petition in the court that originally handled the case. The process typically involves obtaining a background check, paying court and administrative fees (filing fees alone can run from roughly $40 to $150), and appearing before a judge. Many jurisdictions impose a waiting period of three to eight years before refiling after a denial.
- Constitutional challenge. Some individuals have challenged their convictions or registry requirements through “as-applied” arguments, asking courts to recognize that Lawrence renders their specific conviction invalid. These challenges face significant procedural obstacles, including rules that can bar federal claims unless the original prosecution concluded favorably for the defendant.
The common thread is that the burden falls on the person convicted. The state does not proactively clear records when the underlying law is struck down or repealed. Removing a historical sodomy conviction usually means hiring a lawyer and navigating an unfamiliar court process.
Could Lawrence Be Overturned?
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, raised immediate questions about the durability of Lawrence. Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion that the Court “should reconsider” its substantive due process precedents, naming Lawrence alongside Griswold and Obergefell v. Hodges.
No other justice joined that concurrence. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, said the ruling concerned abortion and “no other right.” Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to emphasize that overruling Roe does not threaten other precedents. Lawrence remains binding law, and no case currently before the Court seeks to overturn it.
The zombie statutes in more than a dozen states mean the infrastructure for prosecution would be ready if Lawrence were ever weakened. That is one reason advocacy groups continue to press for formal legislative repeals. A statute that no longer exists cannot be revived, whatever the Supreme Court does next.