Eisenstadt v. Baird
| Eisenstadt v. Baird | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 17–18, 1971 Decided March 22, 1972 |
|
| Full case name | Thomas S. Eisenstadt, Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts v. William F. Baird |
| Citations | 405 U.S. 438 (more)
92 S. Ct. 1029; 31 L. Ed. 2d 349; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 145
|
| Prior history | Petition dismissed, 310 F. Supp. 951 (D. Mass. 1970); vacated, 429 F.2d 1398 (1st Cir. 1970) |
| Subsequent history | None |
| Holding | |
| A Massachusetts law criminalizing the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons for the purpose of preventing pregnancy violated the right to equal protection. Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Brennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | White, joined by Blackmun |
| Dissent | Burger |
| Powell and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. IX, XIV | |
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married .
The Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
William Baird was charged with a felony for distributing contraceptive foams after lectures on birth control and population control at Boston University. The prearranged violation of the law occurred on April 6, 1967 when Baird handed a condom and a package of contraceptive foam to a 19-year-old woman. Under Massachusetts law on "Crimes against chastity" (Chapter 272, section 21A), contraceptives could be distributed only by registered doctors or pharmacists, and only to married persons.
After Baird was convicted, an appeal resulted in partial overturn by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which concluded that the lectures were covered by First Amendment protections. However, the SJC affirmed the conviction under contraceptive distribution laws. Baird filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, which was refused by the federal district court. Upon appeal, The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the action with directions to grant the writ, and dismiss the charge, reasoning that the Massachusetts law infringed on fundamental human rights of unmarried couples as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, by Sheriff Eisenstadt, who had prosecuted the case, on the ground that Baird lacked standing to appeal, being neither an authorized distributor under the statute nor a single person.
...
Wikipedia