[aristeides]

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times agrees with me that the Supreme Court vacated the Kansas court's conviction of Limon (for sodomizing a 14-year-old boy) and that it told the Kansas court to reconsider both the conviction and the sentence in light of Lawrence. Justices Extend Decision on Gay Rights and Equality.

[AntiGuv]

Linda Greenhouse is wrong. Period. Which partly explains why she's a journalist and not a lawyer. As this Washington Post article makes clear:

Gay Rights Ruling Affects Kan. Case

The Supreme Court announced yesterday the first ripple effect of its landmark decision on gay rights, ordering a Kansas court to reconsider its approval of a 17-year sentence meted out to an 18-year-old man for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy.

Without comment or published dissent, the court vacated the Kansas Court of Appeals' ruling last year that Matthew Limon's sentence was constitutional even though the same conduct between two persons of different sexes would have received a far lighter penalty under Kansas law.

In fact, as that excerpt makes clear, there was never even a slightest question of vacating the original conviction, because the Kansas ruling under appeal itself only dealt with the constitutionality of the sentence disparity. To reiterate yet again, the conviction has not been vacated no matter how many ways you figure out to suggest otherwise.