Poe v. Ullman
1961 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Poe v. Ullman?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case, seeking pre-enforcement review, that held in the majority that plaintiffs (because the law had never been enforced) lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives and banned doctors from advising their use. Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed unripe because there was no actual threat of injury to anyone who disobeyed the law.[1] The same statute would be challenged again (this time successfully) just five years later in Griswold v. Connecticut.[2]
The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (June 2020) |
Poe v. Ullman | |
---|---|
Argued March 1–2, 1961 Decided June 19, 1961 | |
Full case name | Poe et al. v. Ullman, State's Attorney |
Citations | 367 U.S. 497 (more) 81 S. Ct. 1752; 6 L. Ed. 2d 989 |
Case history | |
Prior | 147 Conn. 48, 156 A.2d 508 (1959); probable jurisdiction noted, 362 U.S. 987 (1960). |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 869 (1961). |
Holding | |
Connecticut law barring possession of birth control not ripe for constitutional challenge because of lack of enforcement. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Frankfurter, joined by Warren, Clark, Whitaker |
Concurrence | Brennan (in judgment) |
Dissent | Douglas |
Dissent | Harlan |
Dissent | Stewart |
Dissent | Black |
The Supreme Court cites the fact that the law prohibiting use of contraceptives had been on the books since 1879 and that during the near-century of its having been enacted, only one prosecution, in 1940, was ever initiated. Furthermore, the Court cites the fact that Connecticut drug stores openly sold contraceptives, and such an act invited enforcement far more than the private conduct being sued to allow, thus Connecticut is really not enforcing the law and the mere existence of the law does not give the Supreme Court cause to exercise its judicial review.