431 U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977)
In 1972, New York Education Law section 6811(8) prohibited the sale or distribution of any contraceptive to a minor under sixteen.1 It limited distribution to persons sixteen and older to licensed pharmacists.2 It also banned the advertisement or display of contraceptives.3
Population Planning Associates, Inc., a North Carolina corporation engaged in mail-order sales of nonprescription contraceptives, regularly advertised its products in New York periodicals.4 It filled orders from New York residents without age restrictions.5 On December 1, 1971, New York officials notified PPA that one of its advertisements violated the statute and requested future compliance.6 A February 23, 1973 letter threatened referral to the Attorney General for legal action if PPA failed to comply with the provisions prohibiting sales to minors and sales by nonpharmacists.7 On September 4, 1974, state inspectors served PPA with a report recording its advertising of male contraceptives and advising it to cease sales in violation of state law.8
PPA, along with Population Services International, Reverend James B. Hagen, three physicians, and an adult New York resident, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.9 A three-judge District Court for the Southern District of New York declared § 6811 (8) unconstitutional in its entirety under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution insofar as it applies to nonprescription contraceptives, and enjoined its enforcement as so applied.10 The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the statute.11 Appellants included New York Governor Hugh Carey and other state officials responsible for enforcing the Education Law.12
After proceedings, a three-judge district court in 1975 declared section 6811(8) unconstitutional in its entirety under the First and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as it applied to nonprescription contraceptives and enjoined its enforcement.13 The district court opinion is reported at 398 F. Supp. 321 (1975).14 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1976.15
Whether Population Planning Associates has standing to challenge New York Education Law § 6811(8)?16
A vendor has standing to challenge a statute in its own right and on behalf of its potential customers.17 This standing exists when the statute inflicts injury in fact by addressing legal duties directly to vendors.18 The statute creates direct economic injury through market constriction or the threat of legal sanctions.19
Yes. Population Planning Associates regularly advertises its products in periodicals published or circulated in New York.2021 It accepts orders from New York residents.22 It fills those orders by mailing contraceptives without any age restrictions on availability.23
New York officials notified PPA through a December 1, 1971 letter that one of its advertisements violated the statute and requested future compliance.24 A February 23, 1973 letter specifically referenced the prohibitions on sales to minors and sales by nonpharmacists and threatened referral to the Attorney General for legal action if PPA failed to comply.25 On September 4, 1974, state inspectors served PPA with a report recording its advertising of male contraceptives and advising it to cease sales in violation of state law. These facts establish that the statutory duties are addressed directly to vendors such as PPA.26
PPA must either incur direct economic injury by constricting its market or disobey and suffer sanctions.27 This satisfies Article III requirements and permits PPA to advocate for the rights of its potential customers.28
Population Planning Associates possesses the requisite standing to maintain the action challenging the constitutionality of section 6811(8) both in its own right and on behalf of third parties.29
Whether New York's limitation of the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to licensed pharmacists is constitutional?30
No. The limitation on distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to licensed pharmacists only substantially burdens the freedom to make decisions regarding contraception by rendering contraceptive devices considerably less accessible to the public, reducing the opportunity for privacy of selection and purchase, and lessening the possibility of price competition, as seen in Population Planning Associates' mail-order operations serving New York residents that were subject to enforcement threats.33 The asserted interests in quality control, preventing tampering, and facilitating enforcement do not rise to the level of compelling state interests when applied to nonhazardous contraceptives, and the restriction is not narrowly tailored to any such interest.34
New York's limitation of the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to licensed pharmacists is unconstitutional as applied to the activities of Population Planning Associates.35
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell agreed that the pharmacy restriction lacks any rational justification once the limitation on distribution to minors is invalidated.36 He noted that even if New York could enact permissible limitations on access for children, the present statute prohibits distribution by mail to adults.37 This works a significant invasion of constitutionally protected privacy in decisions concerning sexual relations.38
Powell emphasized that requiring individuals to buy contraceptives over the counter heavily burdens protected freedom.39 The restriction on mail-order sales by PPA could not be sustained as an enforcement measure.40
Justice Stevens joined the conclusion that the grant to licensed pharmacists of a monopoly in the distribution of nonmedical contraceptives is unconstitutional.41 He stressed that the statute is defective because it requires an ill-advised act by a minor to give rise to greater risk of irreparable harm than a similar act by an adult.42 The prohibition denies minors and their parents a choice that would reduce exposure to disease or unwanted pregnancy.43
Stevens characterized the government's mandated harm as a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.44
Whether New York's prohibition on the distribution of contraceptives to minors under the age of sixteen is constitutional?45
The right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as adults.46 State restrictions inhibiting privacy rights of minors are valid only if they serve a significant state interest that is not present in the case of an adult.47 A blanket prohibition on distribution of contraceptives to minors cannot be justified by the state's interest in discouraging sexual activity among the young.48
No. The prohibition constitutes a blanket restriction on distribution of contraceptives to minors under sixteen.49 It burdens the exercise of a fundamental right without demonstration of a significant state interest not present for adults.50 Population Planning Associates regularly advertised and sold contraceptives without age restrictions.51 It received enforcement threats specifically citing the prohibition on sales to minors.52
This directly implicates the rights of its potential minor customers.53 The state's asserted interest in deterring sexual activity among minors by increasing the hazards attendant on it is not supported by any evidence in the record.54 This confirms that the restriction operates as an unjustified barrier rather than a narrowly tailored regulation.55
New York's prohibition on the distribution of contraceptives to minors under the age of sixteen is unconstitutional.56
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White concurred in the result with respect to Part IV.57 He did so primarily because the State has not demonstrated that the prohibition against distribution of contraceptives to minors measurably contributes to the deterrent purposes which the State advances as justification for the restriction.58 He noted that the legality of state laws forbidding premarital intercourse is not at issue here.59
White emphasized that the result follows from prior decisions in Eisenstadt and Roe without reaching broader questions about laws regulating sexual conduct.60
Justice Stevens agreed that the prohibition against the distribution of contraceptives to persons under 16 years of age is unconstitutional.61 He explained that the statutory prohibition denies minors and their parents a choice which, if available, would reduce their exposure to disease or unwanted pregnancy.62 An attempt to persuade by inflicting harm on the listener is an unacceptable means of conveying a message that is otherwise legitimate.63
Stevens stressed that the statute is defended as a form of propaganda rather than a regulation of behavior and that such government-mandated harm constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.64
Whether New York's prohibition on the advertisement or display of contraceptives violates the First Amendment?65
A state may not completely suppress the dissemination of concededly truthful information about entirely lawful activity, even when that information is categorized as commercial speech.66 This holds unless the regulation is a mere time, place, and manner restriction or prohibits only misleading or deceptive advertisements.67
Yes. The prohibition seeks to suppress completely any information about the availability and price of contraceptives through a total ban on advertisement or display.68 Population Planning Associates regularly advertises its products in periodicals published or circulated in New York. It received official notifications that such advertisements violated the statute.69
This directly burdens its protected commercial speech.70 The state's interests in preventing offense or embarrassment and in avoiding the legitimation of sexual activity among young people do not justify the total suppression.71 The advertisements in the record merely state the availability of products and services that are entirely legal and constitutionally protected.72 No claim is made that the regulation is limited to misleading content or constitutes a valid time, place, and manner restriction.73
New York's prohibition on the advertisement or display of contraceptives violates the First Amendment.74
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Rehnquist dissented from the judgment invalidating the advertising prohibition.75 He argued that the Court had extended principles from prior cases to reach an indefensible result that prevents the representatives of the majority from carrying out a policy after the issues have been fully aired.76 Rehnquist maintained that New York had simply decided to discourage unmarried minors under 16 from having promiscuous sexual intercourse.77
The denial of a power so fundamental to self-government must prove to be a temporary departure from settled adjudication.78 He emphasized that no questions of religious belief or decisions on procreation by married couples were involved.79