In the case of New York v. Uplinger et al., 1983, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law criminalizing consensual sodomy between adults violated their constitutional rights. The defendants, Charles Uplinger and Daniel Bagnall, were arrested in a public place for engaging in oral sex with each other. They challenged their arrests on the grounds that they violated their right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. However, before reaching this issue, it came to light that an earlier decision by New York’s highest court had effectively invalidated such prosecutions under state law – meaning there was no longer any live controversy for the Supreme Court to resolve. As a result of this development, which occurred after certiorari had been granted but before oral argument took place; therefore,the Supreme Court dismissed its writ as improvidently granted.

In the dissenting opinion for New York v. Uplinger, Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case as improvidently granted. He believed that there were significant issues at stake regarding equal protection and due process under law, which warranted a full hearing by the Supreme Court. Specifically, he pointed out that this case involved a statute criminalizing consensual sodomy between adults in private settings - an issue of personal liberty and privacy rights. Furthermore, he noted inconsistencies in how lower courts had interpreted similar laws across different states; some found them unconstitutional while others upheld them. This discrepancy alone merited review to ensure uniformity in legal interpretation nationwide according to him.