EISENSTADT v. BAIRD, 405 U.S. 438

March 22, 1972

BRENNAN, J.

Motion

Review of CA First Circuit decision to vacate dismissal.

Facts

Appellee William Baird was convicted at a bench trial in the Massachusetts Superior Court under Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, 21, first, for exhibiting contraceptive articles in the course of delivering a lecture on contraception to a group of students at Boston University and, second, for giving a young woman a package of Emko vaginal foam at the close of his address.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously set aside the conviction for exhibiting contraceptives on the ground that it violated Baird's First Amendment rights, but by a four-to-three vote sustained the conviction for giving away the foam.

imprisonment for "whoever . . . gives away . . . any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever [405 U.S. 438, 441] for the prevention of conception," except as authorized in 21A. Under 21A,"[a] registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception.

These provisions make it a felony for anyone, other than a registered physician or pharmacist acting in accordance with the terms of 21A, to dispense any article with the intention that it be used for the prevention of conception.

Baird subsequently filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, which the District Court dismissed.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the action with directions to grant the writ discharging Baird.

Thus petition.

Issue

a) W/N Baird has legal standing,

b) W/N Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, 21 and 21A gives different treatment to married and unmarried persons and this unconstitutional

Held

a) Yes.

b) Yes.

CA judgment affirmed.

Ratio

a) As an advocate of the rights of persons to obtain contraceptives and those willing to do so. Also, enforcement of the statute will impair his right to obtain contraceptives (single persons)

b)

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to States the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways

It does, however, deny to States the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute.

Classification “must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.

Purpose: MS SC said that the object of the legislation is to discourage premarital sexual intercourse.

The effect of the ban on distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons has at best a marginal relation to the proffered objective.

Purpose: health needs. No. in a section on morals, and doctor was not allowed to prescribe even when health protection is needed

Then only purpose is to deter contraception.

By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, statute in question violates EPC

If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. (EPC).

Opinions

Douglas, J., concur

At bar is a First Amendment case, being applicable

Had Baird not given away vaginal foam, First Amendment is enough.

FA not limited to verbal expression. Putting on display contraceptives is an aid to speech

Emko is a product used w/o prescription, so Baird cannot be convicted.

Burger, C.J, dissent

In Griswold, it was ban of contraceptives. In this case mere limitation, and limitation to competent and qualified medical professionals.

Need for dissemination of information on birth control is not impinged by limiting the distribution to medical and pharma channels.