A federal lawsuit has been filed to declare Mississippi’s sodomy law unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, filed by five people with the alias Arthur Doe, Brenda Doe, Carol Doe, Diana Doe and Elizabeth Doe, says in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct, historically known as sodomy, is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment.

“Despite this clear proclamation made more than a decade ago, Mississippi continues to enforce its criminal statute prohibiting sodomy, titled unnatural intercourse,…by requiring people convicted of unnatural intercourse to register as sex offenders and follow myriad, onerous prescriptions on their everyday life pursuant to Mississippi’s sex offender registry law,” according to the lawsuit filed last month in U.S. District Court in Jackson.

The unnatural sex law says: “Every person who shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.”

The lawsuit seeks to prevent enforcement of the law. It seeks an injunction compelling the state to remove the plaintiffs from the sex offender registry, expunge all records signaling their past inclusion, and/or enjoining the state from administering and enforcing the registry law. In addition, the plaintiffs seeks attorney fees and costs

“Registration as a sex offender burdens almost every aspect of daily life. Plaintiffs – all of whom are required to register only for convictions under Mississippi’s Unnatural Intercourse Statute or an out-of-state conviction Mississippi deems analogous – suffer significant restrictions on their public and personal lives through Mississippi’s plainly unconstitutional conduct. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment and injunctive relief to stop Mississippi from enforcing its unconstitutional sodomy prohibition and to remove the Unnatural Intercourse statute or any purportedly analogous out-of-state law as offenses subject to the MSOR.”

The lawsuit names Attorney General Jim Hood as one of the defendants.

“Our office will defend the constitutionality of our sex offender registry. The individual plaintiff cases will be fact specific, requiring a lengthy analysis of each case. The registry is a vital safety tool for Mississippi families,” Hood said Wednesday in a statement.

Local Jackson attorney Rob McDuff, joined by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, and Los Angeles attorney Matthew Stugar, filed the lawsuit on behalf of individuals charged with violating the law.

” The Supreme Court unequivocally declared this kind of “sodomy” statute unconstitutional thirteen years ago, in 2003. The Court in Lawrence v. Texas pointed out that the mere existence of sodomy statutes is an invitation to subject the LGBT community to discrimination both in the public and private spheres,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Ghita Schwarz. “And yet, 13 years later, Mississippi still has an Unnatural Intercourse statute on the books, and still enforces that statute by requiring people with those convictions, or those from out-of-state it deems “equivalent,” to register as sex offenders for 25 years, a devastating consequence that causes enormous financial and social burdens. Mississippi’s Unnatural Intercourse statute and the requirement that those with UI convictions register are unconstitutional, and they must be invalidated.”

The lawsuit says Mississippi’s unnatural intercourse law is indistinguishable from Georgia and Texas laws declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2003 ruling.

McDuff says in court papers the Mississippi imposes sex offender registration not only on individuals convicted under the state law, but also for out-of-state crimes that have sodomy as an element of the conviction.

In the state’s answer to the lawsuit, Special Assistant Attorney General Paul Barnes has asked for an order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it can’t be brought back up, and at plaintiffs’ sole cost.

For more information, please visit the source link below.