Whalen v. Roe

Supreme Court of United States
429 U.S. 589 (1977)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of privacy by recording, in a centralized computer database, the names and addresses of individuals who obtain Schedule II prescription drugs, provided there is a legitimate state interest and the state has implemented security measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

Facts:

In 1970, New York established a commission to evaluate its drug-control laws due to concerns about the diversion of legal drugs into illegal channels.
The commission found existing laws were deficient in preventing the use of stolen or forged prescriptions, over-prescribing by doctors, and patients obtaining prescriptions from multiple doctors.
Following the commission's recommendations, New York enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1972.
The Act required that prescriptions for Schedule II drugs, which have a high potential for abuse, be written on a serially numbered, official triplicate form.
One copy of the form, which identified the prescribing physician, pharmacy, drug, dosage, and the patient's name, address, and age, had to be filed with the New York State Department of Health.
The Department of Health stored the information from these forms on magnetic tapes for computer processing.
The law included security provisions: the physical forms were kept in a vault, computer access was restricted, and the statute expressly prohibited public disclosure of patient identities, making willful violation a crime.

Procedural Posture:

A group of patients, doctors, and physicians' associations sued the New York Commissioner of Health in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement of the Act's patient-identification provisions, arguing they violated the constitutional right to privacy.
A three-judge District Court panel was convened, which held that the patient-identification requirement was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
The District Court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the relevant portions of the Act.
The Commissioner of Health, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 requires the recording of names and addresses of individuals receiving prescriptions for certain dangerous drugs in a centralized computer file violate the constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Stevens

No, the New York law does not violate the constitutional right to privacy. The Court recognizes two types of privacy interests: the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters and the interest in independence in making important decisions. This statute does not pose a sufficiently grievous threat to either interest. The state's interest in controlling the distribution of dangerous drugs is vital, and the patient-identification requirement is a reasonable exercise of its broad police powers to address this problem. The statute contains robust security provisions to prevent public disclosure, and the required disclosures to state health officials are not significantly different from other routine medical information disclosures required for public health purposes.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan

No. While the central computer storage of collected data is troubling and increases the potential for abuse, the New York program includes numerous, carefully designed safeguards to prevent indiscriminate disclosure. Given this serious and successful effort to limit access and prevent abuse, the statute's computer storage provisions do not, on their face, amount to a deprivation of constitutionally protected privacy. However, broad dissemination of such information by the state would clearly implicate constitutional privacy rights and would need to be justified by a compelling state interest.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart

No. The Constitution does not recognize a general constitutional 'right to privacy' in the sense of a 'right to be let alone.' Instead, it protects specific aspects of privacy, such as those related to marriage, procreation, and activities within the home. The protection of a person's general right to privacy from the disclosure of information is largely left to the laws of individual states. The precedents cited in other opinions do not support the proposition that broad dissemination of information collected by the state would necessarily implicate a federal constitutional right.

Analysis:

This case is significant for formally recognizing an 'interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters' as a component of the constitutional right to privacy, often termed informational privacy. However, the Court established that this right is not absolute and can be overcome by a legitimate state interest, particularly when accompanied by strong data security measures. Whalen v. Roe set an important precedent for the digital age, creating a balancing framework that allows government data collection for public welfare purposes while acknowledging the privacy risks inherent in large-scale databases. It signals that courts will defer to legislative judgments about public health regulation as long as the privacy intrusions are not egregious and are protected by adequate safeguards.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Whalen v. Roe (1977)

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