Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the precedent of the 'right to privacy' - a right which isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but which had been established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case which declared laws restricting married couples from purchasing contraception in violation of the 'right to marital privacy'.
The Griswold v. Connecticut privacy precedent was cited in the arguments for Roe v. Wade which concluded that the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment reinforced the 'right to privacy' established by Griswold. When Roe was struck down by Dobbs v. Jackson, Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion that "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell", cases that ensure rights to marital privacy, consensual adult non-procreative sexual activity, and federal same-sex marriage. This reasoning would also challenge Loving v. Virginia, which declared laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional and was also decided on the privacy precedent of the Due Process Clause.
The establishment reaction to this is to sing the same refrain as always: this is the fault of the people to not vote hard enough to ensure the safety of the Supreme Court. Besides the fact that because of the Electoral College, 4 of the 9 current justices were appointed by losers of the popular vote, it also reinforces the bankrupt idea that our best chance for liberation is through 9 unelected people sitting for life on an institution that gave itself the right to strike down legislation at will in Marbury v. Madison.
The fact of the matter is that when we rely on the Supreme Court to deign to give us quote unquote rights, we reify this most undemocratic branch of government which represents the highest level of a judicial system that from its very roots is at war against working class people, and especially the most oppressed members of that class, using all levels of law enforcement to inflict those laws with violence. We confirm the supposed validity of a system that says what the court giveth the court taketh away, and well, those are the rules. We accept the brittleness of narrow, limited demands geared towards being as palatable as possible to a fundamentally conservative institution. We accept the brutal limitations of the judicial system as it is and funnel all of our energy into pleading at its knees, lashing out at any mass movement that demands more out of fear that it'll jeopardize our chances of getting the pantheon of nine to gaze on us with favor.
Any right won through the courts, especially at its highest and least democratic level, gifts the racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-working class judicial system another knife to press against our backs. We only win true liberation through organized solidarity to fight for removing the power of these owning-class institutions.
90s queer activists used the slogan "Stonewall was a riot - now we need a revolution!" for a reason.