Richardson v. Hardwick was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. The case was brought by Michael Hardwick, who was arrested for violating the statute after police officers entered his home and found him engaging in consensual sodomy with another adult male. Hardwick challenged the statute as a violation of his right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia statute was constitutional, ruling that the right to privacy did not extend to consensual sodomy. The Court reasoned that the right to privacy was not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, and that the Georgia statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power. The Court also noted that the statute was not aimed at any particular group, and that it applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct. The decision in Richardson v. Hardwick was widely criticized, and it was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. In that case, the Court held that the right to privacy did extend to consensual sodomy, and that the Texas statute criminalizing it was unconstitutional.

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion in Richardson v. Hardwick, arguing that the majority's decision was an unwarranted intrusion into a private and intimate relationship between two consenting adults. He argued that Georgia's sodomy law violated both substantive due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it criminalized consensual sexual conduct between same-sex partners while allowing similar behavior for heterosexual couples. Furthermore, he noted that such laws were rooted in moral disapproval rather than any legitimate governmental interest or purpose, which is not sufficient to justify its enforcement. Justice Stevens concluded by stating that if there is no right to privacy with respect to matters of personal intimacy then "the State may as well require us all to register our names and addresses along with details of our sexual practices."