|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50657" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Eisenstadt v. Baird</name><docketNumber>70-17</docketNumber><term>1971</term><court><name>Burger Court (1971-1972)</name><identifier>burger3</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger3</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">Eisenstadt</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">Baird</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1971-11-17</date><date type="argued">1971-11-18</date><date type="decided">1972-03-22</date></dates><citation><volume>405</volume><page>438</page><year>1972</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14585</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>William Baird gave away Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman following his Boston University lecture on birth control and over-population. Massachusetts charged Baird with a felony, to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women. Under the law, only married couples could obtain contraceptives; only registered doctors or pharmacists could provide them. Baird was not an authorized distributor of contraceptives.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>William Baird gave away Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman following his Boston University lecture on birth control and over-population. Massachusetts charged Baird with a felony, to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women. Under the law, only married couples could obtain contraceptives; only registered doctors or pharmacists could provide them. Baird was not an authorized distributor of contraceptives.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>The Massachusetts law at issue violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by making it a crime for anyone other than a licensed physician or pharmacist to provide contraceptives, and by limiting access to such products to married people only. Justice William J. Brennan authored the 6-1 majority opinion of the Court.</p>
|
|
|
<p>The Court rejected Massachusetts’ claims that the statute was justified either on health grounds or as a deterrent to premarital sex. It found that the statute did not rationally serve either purpose. First, the law permitted distribution of contraceptives to prevent disease regardless of marital status, which undermined the health rationale. Moreover, the law treated distribution for unmarried individuals as a felony punishable by up to five years, while fornication was only a misdemeanor—a disparity that the Court said could not be reconciled with the state's asserted purpose of deterring premarital sex. Because unmarried individuals were entirely denied access to contraceptives while married individuals could obtain them via prescriptions, the law created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification unrelated to any legitimate goal.</p>
|
|
|
<p>The Court concluded that if married people have a constitutional right to access and use contraception under Griswold v. Connecticut, then unmarried people must have the same right. The law’s differential treatment of similarly situated individuals — based solely on marital status — made its enforcement inconsistent with equal protection principles. Treating contraceptives themselves as immoral or punishing their distribution to unmarried people could not support such unequal burdens on fundamental rights.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justice William O. Douglas authored a concurring opinion arguing the conviction violated the First Amendment’s protections for speech and educational advocacy.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justice Byron White, joined by Justice Harry Blackmun, concurred in the result, reasoning that the conviction could not stand because the state had failed to prove that the contraceptive Baird distributed posed any health risk.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Chief Justice Warren Burger dissented, arguing that the law legitimately regulated medical distribution of contraceptives, and Baird lacked standing to challenge it on behalf of unmarried persons.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist took no part in the case.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>The Massachusetts law at issue violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by making it a crime for anyone other than a licensed physician or pharmacist to provide contraceptives, and by limiting access to such products to married people only. Justice William J. Brennan authored the 6-1 majority opinion of the Court.
|
|
|
The Court rejected Massachusetts’ claims that the statute was justified either on health grounds or as a deterrent to premarital sex. It found that the statute did not rationally serve either purpose. First, the law permitted distribution of contraceptives to prevent disease regardless of marital status, which undermined the health rationale. Moreover, the law treated distribution for unmarried individuals as a felony punishable by up to five years, while fornication was only a misdemeanor—a disparity that the Court said could not be reconciled with the state's asserted purpose of deterring premarital sex. Because unmarried individuals were entirely denied access to contraceptives while married individuals could obtain them via prescriptions, the law created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification unrelated to any legitimate goal.
|
|
|
The Court concluded that if married people have a constitutional right to access and use contraception under Griswold v. Connecticut, then unmarried people must have the same right. The law’s differential treatment of similarly situated individuals — based solely on marital status — made its enforcement inconsistent with equal protection principles. Treating contraceptives themselves as immoral or punishing their distribution to unmarried people could not support such unequal burdens on fundamental rights.
|
|
|
Justice William O. Douglas authored a concurring opinion arguing the conviction violated the First Amendment’s protections for speech and educational advocacy.
|
|
|
Justice Byron White, joined by Justice Harry Blackmun, concurred in the result, reasoning that the conviction could not stand because the state had failed to prove that the contraceptive Baird distributed posed any health risk.
|
|
|
Chief Justice Warren Burger dissented, arguing that the law legitimately regulated medical distribution of contraceptives, and Baird lacked standing to challenge it on behalf of unmarried persons.
|
|
|
Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist took no part in the case.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="Argued the cause for appellant"><name>Joseph R. Nolan</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/joseph_r_nolan</href></advocate><advocate for="Argued the cause for appellee"><name>Joseph D. Tydings</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/joseph_d_tydings</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party=""><description /><votes majority="6" minority="1"><vote opinion_type="concurrence" vote="majority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="special concurrence" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="none" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="none" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-17</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-17.json</raw_file></source></case> |
