Skinner v. Oklahoma
316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Rule of Law:
A state law that infringes on a fundamental right, such as procreation, is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a law is unconstitutional if it applies dissimilar treatment to individuals who have committed intrinsically similar crimes without a rational basis.
Facts:
- In 1926, a man named Skinner was convicted of stealing chickens.
- In 1929, Skinner was convicted of robbery with firearms.
- In 1934, Skinner was again convicted of robbery with firearms.
- In 1935, Oklahoma enacted the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act.
- The Act mandated sterilization for any person convicted three or more times of felonies involving "moral turpitude."
- The Act specifically exempted certain white-collar crimes, including embezzlement, from its provisions.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney General of Oklahoma initiated proceedings against Skinner in an Oklahoma state trial court under the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act.
- A jury trial was held on the sole issue of whether the sterilization procedure would be detrimental to Skinner's general health; the jury found it would not be.
- The trial court entered a judgment ordering that Skinner be rendered sexually sterile.
- Skinner, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the trial court's order.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Skinner's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, which imposes sterilization on individuals convicted three times of certain felonies like grand larceny but exempts economically similar felonies like embezzlement, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by creating an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. Procreation is a fundamental right, and legislation affecting it is subject to strict scrutiny. The law impermissibly distinguishes between intrinsically similar crimes, such as grand larceny and embezzlement, subjecting a three-time larcenist to sterilization while a three-time embezzler is immune. Oklahoma offers no scientific or eugenic basis for the conclusion that the criminal traits of a larcenist are more inheritable than those of an embezzler, making the classification a clear and unmistakable discrimination that fails to satisfy the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Concurring - Mr. Chief Justice Stone
Yes, but the Act should be struck down on Due Process grounds rather than Equal Protection grounds. The fundamental problem is not the distinction between different classes of criminals, but the law's failure to provide any individual with an opportunity to be heard on the critical issue of whether their specific criminal tendencies are, in fact, inheritable. By condemning an entire class to sterilization without an individualized hearing on the trait that justifies the measure, the Act violates the most elementary principles of procedural due process.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, for both the reasons articulated by the majority and by the Chief Justice. The Act fails on both Equal Protection grounds, due to its arbitrary classification scheme, and on Due Process grounds, due to its lack of an adequate individual hearing. Furthermore, the Act raises grave constitutional questions about the extent to which a legislative majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of a minority, even one convicted of crimes.
Analysis:
Skinner v. Oklahoma is a landmark decision that established procreation as a fundamental right and introduced strict scrutiny as the standard of review for laws that infringe upon such rights under the Equal Protection Clause. This case marked a significant departure from the Court's previous deference to eugenics-based legislation in Buck v. Bell (1927). By applying a heightened level of judicial review, the Court set a powerful precedent for protecting fundamental liberties from discriminatory state action. This decision laid the groundwork for future privacy and reproductive rights jurisprudence, influencing cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"