Budd v. California

Background

A 56-year-old man repeatedly arrested for public drunkenness challenged California’s law making it a misdemeanor to be intoxicated in public and unable to care for one’s safety. The trial record contained testimony that he had been an alcoholic for decades, with more than 40 arrests and involuntary drinking and buying behavior, but the trial court made no finding on alcoholism as a legal defense.

Reasoning

The central question is whether a State may constitutionally punish a person for conduct that stems from the illness of alcoholism. Justice Fortas argued that the Court should hear the case because Robinson v. California already held that punishing narcotics addiction is cruel and unusual, and the record here strongly suggests illness rather than voluntary misconduct. The Court, however, declined to grant review, so it did not decide the constitutional question.

Real world impact

The denial leaves California’s enforcement of the public-intoxication misdemeanor intact for now. Fortas emphasized that millions of Americans suffer from alcoholism and that over a million arrests yearly are for drunkenness, arguing criminal punishment is ineffective and antitherapeutic. The denial is not a final ruling on the constitutional issue and does not prevent the Court from addressing it later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Fortas dissented from denial of review and was joined by Justice Douglas; they urged full consideration of whether punishing alcoholism violates the Eighth Amendment and should instead be handled medically.