"This case assesses the constitutionality of a Texas statute making it a crime to promote or sell sexual devices. The district court upheld the statute's constitutionality [...] We reverse the judgment and hold that the statute has provisions that violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

* Actually, the law is much worse than that. It bans promotion or possession with intent to promote sex toys, and then defines: "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which legalized consensual private sex, including sodomy and BDSM and gay sex and group sex - anything consenting adults choose to do without intending for it to be public (IOW, a peeping tom doesn't make it "not private").



Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which legalized the pill, and the sale & use of contraceptives in general.

"Because of Lawrence, the issue before us is whether the Texas statute impermissibly burdens the individual's substantive due process right to engage in private intimate conduct of his or her choosing."

In the landmark 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which invalidated a ban on the use of contraceptives, the Court recognized that the plaintiff pharmacists "have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship."



... Griswold, where the Court held that restricting commercial transactions unconstitutionally burdened the exercise of individual rights.

Buy, sell, or use condoms or the pill



Buy, sell, or use vibrators or dildos



Have oral sex

Thanks to ratatosk for pointing out this decision.