This case concerns Army Lieutenant Joseph G. Hatheway, Jr., who was accused of performing sodomy on another Army officer, and, per Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. s 925 (1976), which criminalizes "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex," was dishonorably discharged from his post. Hatheway offered to prove that the Army only prosecuted cases of homosexual sodomy, despite the fact that he was aware of instances of heterosexual sodomy, but was informed that this fact would have little impact on his case. He also argued that the sodomy clause has religious origins and that homosexual acts, in and of themselves, are not harmful. The ACLU represented Hatheway, who sought "a declaration that his conviction was invalid, and an order that he be given an honorable discharge and all pay and benefits denied because of his conviction." He also alleged that the court-martial proceedings violated his rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

The judge upheld the Army's prohibition of homosexual acts, arguing that "'doubts concerning a homosexual officer's ability to command therespect and trust of the personnel he or she commands' supported the Navy's regulation," and that " those who engage in homosexual acts severely compromise the government's ability to maintain" a strong military force. The Court also wrote that " the First Amendment is applied uniquely in a military setting. The need for discipline and order justify limitations on individual speech and conduct that would violate the First Amendment in a civilian setting." They also wrote that "in a military setting the proscriptions of Article 125 have a legitimate secular purpose and effect." The Court upheld the initial judgement of the Military Judge, which permitted Hatheway's dishonorable discharge.