- [Narrator] In 1879, the State of Connecticut
enacted a law prohibiting anyone from using contraceptives.
For over 80 years, the law had generated
only one prosecution.
Though rarely enforced, the law remained
on the books, undisturbed.
That was, until the late 1950s, when an obstetrician
named Dr. Lee Buxton challenged the statute's
constitutionality in state court.
Dr. Buxton's suit was joined by three
other plaintiffs using pseudonyms.
Plaintiff Jane Doe's first pregnancy left her
seriously injured, and another pregnancy could kill her.
Plaintiffs Paul and Pauline Poe
had three babies in a row die of severe genetic defects.
Another pregnancy would threaten the psychological
and physical health of both Poes.
Jane Doe and the Poes wanted to buy and use
contraceptives, but feared they'd be prosecuted
under the contraception ban.
Dr. Buxton wanted to give contraceptive advice
to his patients, but he feared prosecution too.
Together with his patients, Dr. Buxton sued
Abraham Ullman, the Connecticut State's Attorney,
seeking a declaration that the contraception ban
was unconstitutional, under the Due Process Clause
of the 14th Amendment.
Ullman had never targeted Dr. Buxton or his patients
for prosecution, but during the litigation,
Ullman pledged to enforce all Connecticut laws,
including the contraception ban.
Ullman stuck to this policy, although the ban
was rarely enforced, widely ignored,
and Connecticut drug stores openly sold contraceptives.
The trial court dismissed the claims,
and the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed.
The Poes petitioned for review
in the United States Supreme Court, which granted cert,
presumably to address the statute's constitutionality.
However, instead of deciding the due process claims,
a divided Supreme Court instead considered,
whether federal courts could consider
constitutional challenges to dormant laws,
which have gone unenforced for many years.
Writing for a plurality of the court,
Justice Frankfurter held that Poe and the other plaintiffs
did not present a justiciable issue,
because they didn't face a real or immediate threat of harm.
Article III of the United States Constitution
gives federal courts jurisdiction
to decide cases and controversies.
This means that federal courts may only hear cases
where a genuine controversy exists,
between genuinely adverse parties.
This principle is applied in a few different ways.
If a law doesn't directly affect a plaintiff,
the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the law.
Similarly, if the harm is only potential,
and requires further action or proceedings
before it can affect the plaintiff,
the challenge isn't ripe for review.
And, if opposing parties don't actually have
adverse interests, but seem to be working together
to obtain a desired ruling,
the case will be dismissed as collusive.
According to these principles,
courts should adjudicate a law's constitutionality
only if the challenging party faces an actual and immediate
threat of harm from that law.
In this case, Connecticut hadn't enforced
its contraception ban, even when drug stores
across the state openly sold contraceptives.
In 82 years of the law's existence,
only one prosecution had ever occurred,
and that case resulted in dismissal.
So, despite Ullman's general intention to enforce
all Connecticut laws, Poe and the other plaintiffs
couldn't demonstrate a real fear of prosecution,
if they were to buy or use contraceptives.
As a result, their claims were dismissed.
Justice Brennan concurred in judgment.
Brennan thought the real issue was whether
Connecticut would allow the opening
of birth control clinics.
Because the state never enforced the law
against individuals, private contraceptive use
was not really at stake.
In Brennan's view, the Court couldn't decide
the real constitutional issue,
until a suit about birth control clinics arrived.
Justice Black briefly dissented.
He would have decided the constitutional issues.
Justice Douglas also dissented.
He disagreed that the Connecticut was a dead letter,
noting that clinics had closed after the single prosecution
mentioned in the plurality opinion.
He would have struck down the Connecticut law,
under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Justice Harlan also dissented, arguing that
the Poes were threatened with real and imminent harm.
He would have struck down the Connecticut law,
as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Justice Stewart filed a brief dissent,
agreeing with Justices Douglas and Harlan.
Shortly after the Poe decision,
Dr. Buxton and Estelle Griswold
of the Planned Parenthood League
followed Justice Brennan's suggestion,
and opened a birth control clinic in Connecticut.
Buxton and Griswold were arrested 10 days later,
setting the stage for a landmark birth control ruling
four years later, in Griswold vs. Connecticut.
(chalk scraping slate)