Poe v. Ullman

Background

The lawsuits were brought by two married couples (the Poes and a woman identified as Jane Doe) and by their physician, Dr. Buxton. Mrs. Poe had suffered three pregnancies that produced infants with severe congenital abnormalities; Mrs. Doe suffered a recent pregnancy that left her critically ill. Dr. Buxton advised that the best and safest care would be medical advice about preventing conception. Plaintiffs asked Connecticut courts to declare unconstitutional the state statutes that criminalize use of contraceptives and make accessories punishable (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-32 and 54-196), because the State’s Attorney said he could enforce those laws.

Reasoning

The main question the Court faced was whether there was a real, immediate dispute that required a constitutional ruling now. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the Court (joined by three Justices), concluded there was not. The opinion notes that Connecticut’s law has existed since 1879 but has been essentially unenforced for decades except for a 1940 prosecution. The Court also observed that contraceptives were openly sold in Connecticut drugstores and that the State’s past practice suggested tacit nonenforcement. Because plaintiffs could not show an immediate, realistic threat of prosecution, the Court declined to decide the constitutional question and dismissed the appeals. Justice Brennan agreed the appeals should be dismissed.

Real world impact

As a result, Connecticut’s criminal statutes on contraceptive use and accessory liability remain on the books and were not struck down by this decision. Married couples and doctors received no constitutional ruling in their favor here; their legal situation could change if the State makes a definite, concrete threat or actually prosecutes under the statutes. This dismissal is procedural, not a decision on whether the laws are constitutional.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented. Justice Douglas argued the case warranted declaratory relief now and emphasized free speech and privacy concerns for doctor-patient advice. Justice Harlan argued the statute intrudes on intimate marital privacy and would have struck it down. Justice Stewart joined those dissents. Justice Brennan concurred only in the judgment dismissing the appeals.