Carey v. Population Services International
Headline: New York restrictions on sales, advertising, and pharmacist-only distribution of nonprescription contraceptives are struck down, restoring access for adults, mail-order sellers, and the right to advertise.
Holding: The Court ruled that New York’s law banning advertising, limiting sales to pharmacists, and forbidding sales to under‑16s unconstitutionally burdens access to nonprescription contraceptives and is invalid as applied.
- Allows vendors and mail-order sellers to advertise and sell nonprescription contraceptives.
- Blocks a pharmacist-only sales monopoly for nonprescription contraceptives.
- Rejects blanket ban on sales to under‑16s as applied, limiting state restriction.
Summary
Background
Population Planning Associates, a mail-order company that shipped nonprescription contraceptives to New York customers, along with health providers and a minister, sued to challenge a New York law. The law made it a crime to sell contraceptives to anyone under 16, limited sales to licensed pharmacists for others, and banned any advertisement or display of contraceptives. A federal district court struck down the law as applied to nonprescription contraceptives and blocked enforcement; the State appealed and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the Constitution protects the ability to get nonprescription contraceptives and truthful advertising about them. It said choices about having children are protected by a right of personal privacy, and access to contraceptives is essential to exercise that right. Rules that substantially limit access must be justified by a compelling state interest. New York offered no health or similar compelling reason for its broad limits. The Court also held that a total ban on truthful advertising about lawful products violates the First Amendment. The narrow physician exception and pharmacy-only rule did not make the law constitutional.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents New York from enforcing the advertising ban and the pharmacist-only restriction for nonprescription contraceptives, protecting mail-order sellers and other retailers who sell lawful products. It also rejects the blanket ban on selling contraceptives to under-16s as applied here, though the Court noted that states may still adopt narrowly tailored protections for minors. This decision affects how states may shape access, advertising, and distribution rules going forward.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices concurred in the judgment but warned the Court’s test should not sweep too broadly. One Justice strongly dissented, arguing that states should have wider power to deter youth sexual activity.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?