[tdadams]

My correction was mostly to your assessment of the case, describing it as "a teenaged boy forcing deviant and unnatural attentions on another boy." If you had read the Limon case, you would know - the ruling specified - that there was no force involved. Both were willing participants.

We can't be clear on why the judges in the Limon case saw fit to overturn it "in light of Lawrence v. Texas" because they did not elaborate. They gave no rationale other than the quote above.

My guess is they based it on the equal protection opinion from Justice O'Connor. The sentence in the Limon case was starkly, and suddenly, dischordant with O'Connor's opinion.

Thank you for being receptive.

[aristeides]

My guess is they based it on the equal protection opinion from Justice O'Connor.

I am unaware of any case where the Supreme Court has vacated a decision and told the court below to reconsider in the light of a case, where what it really meant was that it should reconsider in light of a concurrence in the judgment. If there are any examples of this out there, I will be happy to learn. But I suspect there are none, and that the Supreme Court can only have meant, reconsider in the light of the opinion of the Court in Lawrence.