New lawsuit claims Idaho statute criminalizing oral and anal sex is unconstitutional
A group of attorneys that includes the ACLU have sued Idaho’s attorney general and others challenging the legality of a state law that criminalizes same-sex oral and anal sex between consenting adults.
The suit — filed Wednesday in federal court — argues that Idaho’s “crime against nature” statute is unconstitutional. Specifically, the lawsuit points to Idaho Code § 18-6605.
The law states that “every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five years.”
The attorneys filing suit noted that they are challenging only the aspects of the “crime against nature” regarding other people, and not objecting to the law regarding animals.
Several attorneys brought the case forward on behalf of an Idaho man who was forced to register as a sex offender after he was convicted on an oral sex statute over 20 years ago in another state. The man was identified in court documents as John Doe.
At the core of the lawsuit is the argument Idaho’s “crime against nature” law is unconstitutional based on a 2003 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling — Lawrence v. Texas — that found anti-sodomy laws violated the 14th Amendment.
Idaho is one of four states still enforcing this type of statue by requiring people with prior convictions to register as sex offenders, according to a news release from the ACLU of Idaho.
“More than 17 years ago, the Supreme Court declared homophobic laws like Idaho’s Crime Against Nature statute unconstitutional. Idaho ignores that ruling and continues to demand people who were convicted of nothing more than having oral or anal sex to register as sex offenders,” Matthew Strugar, a Los Angeles-based attorney involved in the case, said in a news release.
“Just as the state cannot criminalize those sex acts, it cannot force people with decades-old oral sex convictions to register as sex offenders.”
In the complaint, plaintiffs argue that John Doe’s sex offender label has created a barrier for him to finding a job as well as participating in the community. They go on to argue that Idaho’s “crime against nature” stature has hardly changed since Idaho was merely a territory back in the early 1860s.
Attorneys point to the statute as the “primary legal tool” for the Boys of Boise scandal of 1955, an incident the group calls “one of the most virulent anti-gay witch hunts in American history,” according to the complaint.
Named in the suit are Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden; Col. Kedrick Wills, director of the Idaho State Police; and Leila McNeill, bureau chief of ISP’s Bureau of Criminal Identification.
Also filed as part of the suit is a motion for a preliminary injunction that would block state law enforcement officials from enforcing the “crime against nature” law and prevent the state from forcing John Doe to register as a sex offender.
The named defendants had not filed a formal response to the lawsuit as of Thursday afternoon. Dates for hearings have yet to be scheduled.
