Carey v. Population Services International
Carey v. Population Services International | |
---|---|
Holding | |
The advertising restrictions contained in the Educations Laws in New York violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brennan, joined by Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens (Parts I, II, III, V); White (Parts I, III, V); Powell (Part I) |
Plurality | Brennan, joined by Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun (Part IV) |
Concurrence | White |
Concurrence | Powell |
Concurrence | Stevens |
Dissent | Burger |
Dissent | Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV |
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), was a
The Court held that the
Background
The appellants were New York state officials whose job was to enforce the revisions of the Education Law, including then-governor Hugh Carey. The Education Law stated that it was a crime:
a) for any person to sell or distribute any contraceptive of any kind to a minor under the age of 16 years
b) for anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute contraceptives to persons 16 or over
c) for anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives
The main appellee was Population Services International, a nonprofit corporation that spread birth control knowledge and services. Population Services International owned the North Carolina corporation Population Planning Associates, Inc. This corporation sold and advertised contraceptives to New York primarily through mail-order retail sale of nonmedical contraceptive devices from their offices in North Carolina which was a violation of the enforced Education Laws in New York at the time. Other appellees were:
a) Rev. James B. Hagen who was a minister and director of a
b) Physicians who specialized in family planning, pediatrics, and obstetrics-gynecology.
c) An adult resident of New York held that the current law hindered his ability to access nonprescription contraceptive devices and information and his freedom to distribute them to his minor children.[1] The appellees challenged the constitutionality of NY CLS Educ § 6811. The
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the advertising restrictions violated the First Amendment.
The Court further held that :
a) the prohibitions on the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives violated the
b) minors were entitled to the same constitutional protections as adults.
c) each state has somewhat broader authority to regulate the activities of children than of adults.
d) the protection of the right of privacy included the right of an individual, married or single, to be free of unwarranted governmental intrusion in the area of personal decisions regarding intimate relations.
Majority opinion
In the
The majority concluded that:
Part I
Appellee Population Planning Associates, Inc. (PPA) has standing to challenge the Education Law in not only its own right, but also on behalf of its potential customers which was settled by Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Craig held that PPA is among the vendors who have been permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates for the right of third parties who seek access to their market or function.[3]
Part II
Regulations imposing a burden on a decision as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child may be justified only by compelling state interests, and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests.
Part III
The provision prohibiting distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to persons sixteen years or over except through licensed
Part V
The prohibition of any advertisement or display of any contraceptives that seeks to suppress completely any information about the availability and price of contraceptives cannot be justified on the ground that advertisements of contraceptive products would offend and embarrass those exposed to them and that permitting them would
Plurality and concurring opinions
Part IV of Justice Brennan's opinion was a plurality opinion for four of the Justices, not joined by Justice Stevens.
Part IV
The right to privacy, which is protected by the Due Process Clause in Amendment XIV, in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as to adults, and since a state may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy, the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to minors is obviously illegal. Also, the argument that limiting exposure to advertisements of contraceptive products may discourage sexual activity has been rejected by the Court as a justification for restrictions on the freedom to choose whether to bear or beget a child.
Justices White, Powell and Stevens filed opinions concurring in parts of the Court's opinion and in the judgment.
Dissenting opinion
a) no religious beliefs, compelled allegiance to a secular creed or a married couple's decision to procreate was considered in this court case.
b) New York’s purpose of the Education Laws was to discourage minors under the age of sixteen from having premarital sexual intercourse with each other.
c) Women are given the right to choose to get an
d) The Court denied a fundamental power of self-government when it held that New York may not use its police power to legislate in the interests of its concept of the public morality as it pertains to minors.
e) New York's law that all contraceptive medicines are required to be made by licensed pharmacists did not significantly limit the access to these products if a person has a concrete intention to obtain them.
Justice Rehnquist declined to debate Justice Brennan's treatment of the Court's previous opinions with respect to privacy rights because to do so would "concede more validity to the result reached by the Court than I am willing to do." He commented that if the Framers "could have lived to know that their efforts had enshrined in the Constitution the right of commercial vendors of contraceptives to peddle them to unmarried minors through such means as window displays and vending machines located in the men's room of truck stops, notwithstanding the considered judgment of the New York Legislature to the contrary, it is not difficult to imagine their reaction."
Chief Justice Burger dissented without opinion.
Conclusion
Justice
Historical significance
As time goes by, and technology and medical developments continue, more forms of birth control are invented.
In the debate over the woman's right to abortion, the right to privacy comes to play a role in the argument. Each case determines whether the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause of Amendment XIV is expanded to encompass a larger range of citizens. This current case determined that minors were included in the freedom given to a woman to bear a child.[7] Some argue that the prohibition for the distribution of contraceptives to minors was simply a blanket prohibition for the state to avoid abortion which it could not flatly make a law.[8]
Related cases
The Court held that a right in the
a)
b)
Another topic in the case was the prohibition of advertising suppressing commercial speech about any contraceptive device. The Court held that such speech is protected by
a)
b)
References
- ^ LexisNexis Academic. "LexisNexis". Retrieved November 3, 2011.
- ^ The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. "The Oyez Project". Retrieved November 3, 2011.
- ^ Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).
- ^ Legal View. "Legal View". Archived from the original on April 25, 2012. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
- ISBN 978-0-8058-5067-3.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ Brandt, Sarah C (2010). The Availability of Plan B to Minors in the Aftermath of Tummino v. Torti. The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. p. 205.
- ^ Cohen, Jean L. (1992). "Redescribing Privacy: Identity, Difference, and the Abortion Controversy". Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. 3 (1).
- ^ Adams, Jill E. (2005). "The Abortion Rights Controversy in America: A Legal Reader". Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice.
- ^ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
- ^ Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
External links
- Works related to Carey v. Population Services International at Wikisource
- Text of Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) is available from: Cornell Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)