Carey v. Population Services International
431 U.S. 678 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State laws that significantly burden an individual's right to access non-prescription contraceptives must be justified by a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored. This constitutional protection extends to both adults and minors, and states may not completely suppress the dissemination of truthful commercial information about the availability of legal contraceptive products.
Facts:
- A New York Education Law made it a crime to sell or distribute any contraceptive to a minor under the age of 16.
- The law also stipulated that only licensed pharmacists could distribute contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or older.
- Furthermore, the statute prohibited any person, including licensed pharmacists, from advertising or displaying contraceptives.
- Population Planning Associates, Inc. (PPA), a North Carolina corporation, engaged in the mail-order retail sale of non-medical contraceptives.
- PPA regularly advertised its products in New York periodicals and filled mail orders from New York residents, without limiting availability based on age.
- New York officials sent letters to PPA, informing the company its activities violated state law and threatening legal action by the Attorney General if it did not cease its sales and advertising in New York.
Procedural Posture:
- Population Planning Associates, Inc. and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against New York state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that New York Education Law § 6811(8) was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.
- A three-judge District Court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to nonprescription contraceptives and enjoined its enforcement.
- The New York state officials, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York state law that (1) prohibits the sale of non-prescription contraceptives to minors under 16, (2) allows only licensed pharmacists to sell such contraceptives to adults, and (3) bans all advertising of contraceptives, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the New York law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The right to privacy protects an individual's decision whether to bear or beget a child, and state regulations that significantly burden access to the means of effectuating that decision, such as contraceptives, are subject to strict scrutiny. (1) Limiting distribution of non-prescription contraceptives to licensed pharmacists imposes a significant burden on access without serving a compelling state interest; the state's justifications related to health and quality control are not persuasive for non-hazardous, pre-packaged items. (2) [Plurality Opinion for this part] The right to privacy extends to minors, and a state may not impose a blanket prohibition on their access to contraceptives. The state's asserted interest in deterring sexual activity among minors by increasing its hazards is not a constitutionally permissible justification, as it is unreasonable to prescribe pregnancy as punishment for fornication. (3) The complete ban on advertising contraceptives is an unconstitutional suppression of commercial speech under the First Amendment, as it prohibits the dissemination of truthful information about a lawful and constitutionally protected activity.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the New York law is unconstitutional. I concur in the result regarding the prohibition on sales to minors because the State failed to demonstrate that the ban measurably contributes to its goal of deterring teenage sexual activity. I join the Court's opinion striking down the pharmacist-only and advertising provisions.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes, the New York law is unconstitutional, but the majority's application of a 'compelling state interest' test is too severe and not required by precedent. The statute is nonetheless defective because it unconstitutionally infringes on the rights of married minors and interferes with parents' rights to guide their own children. The pharmacist-only restriction lacks a rational basis once the ban on sales to minors is struck down, and while the total advertising ban is invalid, the state should retain authority to impose carefully tailored restrictions.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, the New York law is unconstitutional. The prohibition on sales to minors is invalid not because of a minor's right to contraceptives, but because the state's method is irrational and perverse. A state may not attempt to discourage behavior by deliberately increasing the risk of irreparable harm like unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease; such a government-mandated harm is a deprivation of liberty without due process. I agree that the pharmacist-only and advertising restrictions are unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the New York law does not violate the Constitution. The Court indefensibly extends principles from prior cases to create a right for commercial vendors to sell contraceptives to minors. The New York legislature has the legitimate police power to regulate public morality as it pertains to minors and to discourage promiscuous sexual intercourse among them. The Court's decision improperly prevents the elected representatives of the people from carrying out this valid policy judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the constitutional right to privacy regarding procreation, clarifying that it encompasses not just the 'use' of contraceptives but also the 'access' to them. By applying strict scrutiny to regulations that substantially burden access for adults, the Court made it much more difficult for states to restrict the sale of non-prescription contraceptives. The case is also critical for extending privacy protections to minors, limiting the state's power to regulate adolescent sexual conduct through prohibitive measures. Finally, it solidified commercial speech protections by applying the principles of Virginia Pharmacy Bd. to prevent a complete ban on truthful advertising for constitutionally protected products.
Unlock the full brief for Carey v. Population Services International