There has been some complaint from conservatives that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Texas law criminalizing sodomy was flawed because it cited law from outside America. Supposedly, Supreme Court decisions should rely solely on the Constitution - anything else, and it's no longer an exercise in constitutional interpretation, which is the Supreme's Court job. But is this complaint valid?

According to Jack M. Balkin, the Supreme Court has been citing the laws and legal traditions of other countries since the earliest cases:

[T]he practice of American courts, and in particular the Supreme Court, citing to "the law of nations" goes back to the very beginnings of the country's history. If you think about it, you can see why this would have to be the case. When the country was first founded, it had very little law of its own, and, moreover, it was also a naval power continually engaged in international commerce. ...Following World War II there was also an increasing number of international organizations, and thus more international law, which the Court also refers to.

It seems, then, that conservatives' complain has little merit - perhaps it is just a sign that they are desperate for some basis to criticize the decision in Lawrence v. Texas and this sounds like one that will resonate with the public.

Read More:

• Supreme Court Decisions on Privacy