William MacDonald v. Tim Moose
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4921
4th Cir.2013Background
- MacDonald was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and soliciting a felony, predicated on Va. Code § 18.2-361(A)'s anti-sodomy provision.
- The predicate offense criminalized sodomy, including acts with a minor; Johnson, seventeen, was the alleged victim in a September 2004 encounter.
- MacDonald argued that Lawrence v. Texas invalidated the anti-sodomy provision; the district court rejected this and the Virginia Court of Appeals denied standing to raise a facial challenge.
- MacDonald pursued § 2254 habeas corpus relief; the district court declined relief and the Fourth Circuit initially denied a COA, before the current precedential decision.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, holding the anti-sodomy provision facially unconstitutional under Lawrence and remanding for habeas relief.
- The dissenting judge would have affirmed, arguing Lawrence did not clearly invalidate the statute on its face and that AEDPA review was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Va. Code § 18.2-361(A) is facially unconstitutional under Lawrence | MacDonald contends Lawrence invalidates the statute in all applications. | Commonwealth argues Lawrence does not render the statute facially invalid; it may be applied to minors. | Statute facially unconstitutional under Lawrence |
| Standing to challenge facial validity under Ulster County | MacDonald has a concrete injury and may challenge facial validity. | Ulster County bars facial challenges where the statute can apply constitutionally to the challenger. | MacDonald has standing to pursue facial challenge; Ulster County does not bar relief |
| Application of Ayotte and the possibility of severing unconstitutional portions | Ayotte permits narrowly tailoring or severing unconstitutional provisions while preserving others. | Ayotte cautions against rewriting statute; legislative routing should not be supplanted. | Ayotte-prescribed approach does not save the facially unconstitutional provision |
| AEDPA review standard and whether the district court erred in adjudicating the claim on the merits | District court erred by applying the wrong standard and by upholding state court reasoning. | AEDPA deference applies; court should defer to state court if not unreasonable. | District court erred; relief warranted under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (overruled Bowers; due process/privacy protections apply to private, consensual adult sodomy)
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (facial challenge to sodomy statute rejected; overruled by Lawrence)
- Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979) (standing to challenge a statute facially depends on adverse impact on own rights)
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) (limits on facial invalidation; possible as-applied remedy; cautions against judicial rewriting)
- Martin v. Ziherl, 269 Va. 35, 607 S.E.2d 367 (2005) (Virginia Supreme Court applying Lawrence to invalidate statute as applied to private conduct)
- Moore v. United States, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (facial challenges under federal constitutional rights; aligns with general standards)