MacDonald v. Moose
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
710 F.3d 154 (2013)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
William MacDonald (plaintiff), a 41-year-old man, was convicted of criminal solicitation of sodomy under Virginia’s antisodomy statute, which made it a felony to knowingly engage in oral or anal sex with another person. MacDonald was prosecuted and charged after attempting to solicit oral sex from a 17-year-old girl. MacDonald’s appeal was denied by a circuit court, which concluded that because his conduct involved a minor, he lacked standing to invoke the protection created by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy. MacDonald served one year of a 10-year sentence and had to register as a sex offender. MacDonald filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that Virginia’s antisodomy law was unconstitutional in light of Lawrence. A federal district court denied MacDonald’s petition, concluding that, notwithstanding the Lawrence decision, MacDonald’s conduct was not constitutionally protected and that application of the statute to his case was permissible. MacDonald appealed, arguing that the Lawrence decision rendered all antisodomy statutes unconstitutional on their face and that the statute’s application to his case constituted a due-process violation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)
Dissent (Diaz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
