Poe v. Ullman

Supreme Court of United States
367 U.S. 497 (1961)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A challenge to a state criminal statute's constitutionality is not ripe for judicial review, and is therefore non-justiciable, if the law has a long history of non-enforcement against private individuals, indicating a lack of a credible or immediate threat of prosecution.

Facts:

Paul and Pauline Poe, a married couple, were advised by their physician, Dr. Buxton, that another pregnancy would pose a serious threat to their physical and mental health due to Mrs. Poe's history of three prior pregnancies that resulted in infants with fatal congenital abnormalities.
Jane Doe, a married woman, suffered a critical illness during her last pregnancy that left her with partial paralysis and emotional instability, and her physician, Dr. Buxton, advised that another pregnancy would be exceedingly perilous to her life.
Dr. Buxton, an obstetrician and gynecologist, determined that the best and safest medical treatment for both the Poes and Jane Doe was advice on methods of contraception.
Both the Poes and Jane Doe were unable to obtain contraceptive information or devices from Dr. Buxton.
This inability was solely because Dr. Buxton feared that providing such advice or devices would lead to his prosecution, and their use would lead to the patients' prosecution, under Connecticut's anti-contraception statutes.
The Connecticut State’s Attorney, Ullman, had a public duty to prosecute offenses against the state's laws, and he claimed that giving contraceptive advice and using contraceptives were forbidden offenses.

Procedural Posture:

Paul and Pauline Poe (Plaintiffs) and Jane Doe (Plaintiff) and C. Lee Buxton (Plaintiff) brought separate actions against the State's Attorney of Connecticut, Ullman (Defendant), in Connecticut Superior Court (trial court) seeking declaratory judgments that Connecticut statutes prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of such devices were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The State's Attorney demurred in all three actions, arguing that the statutes in question had been previously upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, thus there was no legal uncertainty to justify declaratory judgment.
The Connecticut Superior Court (trial court) sustained the demurrers.
The Plaintiffs appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (intermediate appellate court).
The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the Superior Court's decision.
The Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute that prohibits the use of contraceptives a justiciable 'case or controversy' when the statute has a history of almost complete non-enforcement against its primary targets?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter

No. A challenge to these statutes does not present a justiciable controversy because there is no immediate or realistic threat of prosecution. The Connecticut law has been on the books since 1879, yet there has been only one prosecution, a 'test case' in 1940 that was ultimately dismissed by the state. Contraceptives are commonly and notoriously sold in Connecticut drugstores without any enforcement action. This 'undeviating policy of nullification' by the state demonstrates that the appellants' fear of prosecution is chimerical. Federal courts must not entertain constitutional questions in advance of the strictest necessity, and this case, lacking a truly adversary contest with an imminent threat of harm, is an abstract dispute over a 'harmless, empty shadow' of a law, not a ripe case or controversy under Article III.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas

Yes. The case is clearly justiciable because the plaintiffs face a genuine dilemma and a real threat. A previous prosecution, State v. Nelson, resulted in the closing of all birth-control clinics in the state, a situation that continues to this day. The state has consistently re-enacted the law and rejected bills to repeal it. The plaintiffs—a sick wife, a concerned husband, and a conscientious doctor—should not be forced to flout the law and risk arrest to have their constitutional rights determined. On the merits, the law violates the First Amendment right of a doctor to give medical advice and the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty, which includes a fundamental right of privacy within the marital relationship.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan

Yes. This case presents a justiciable controversy because the threat of enforcement is not speculative. The single past prosecution, State v. Nelson, was intended to serve as a clear warning of the state's willingness to enforce the statute, and its success is evidenced by the disappearance of birth control clinics. The appellants' fundamental rights should not be held subject to the 'legally unfettered whim of the prosecutor.' On the merits, the statute is an 'intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual's personal life.' Making it a crime for married couples to use contraceptives violates the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by intruding into the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart

Yes. The dissents of Justices Douglas and Harlan convincingly demonstrate that the appeals are justiciable and should not be dismissed. I join them in dissenting from the dismissal.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan

No. The appeal must be dismissed because it does not present a real and substantial controversy, as the record is too skimpy to show the appellants are caught in an inescapable dilemma. The true controversy has historically been over the operation of large-scale birth-control clinics, not the private use of contraceptives by individual married couples. The state has never made a definite threat to enforce the law against individuals, and it will be time enough to decide the constitutional question if and when that real controversy arises again.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark example of the ripeness doctrine and the principle of judicial restraint, where the Court avoids ruling on constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary. By finding the dispute non-justiciable, the Court temporarily sidestepped the controversial question of a constitutional right to privacy in marriage. However, the powerful dissents, particularly Justice Harlan's, laid the essential intellectual groundwork for the Court's decision four years later in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which ultimately struck down the same Connecticut law and established the right to privacy that the Poe court declined to address.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Poe v. Ullman (1961)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"