Case:

APPELANT: Thomas S. Eisenstadt ( Sheriff of Suffolk County, Mass.)

APPELEE: William R. Baird
ARGUED: Nov. 17-18 1971 DECIDED: March 22, 1972
PROCEDURE:
- Convicted in Mass. State court for violating statute.
- Affirmed by Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
- US District Court for the district of Mass. Dismissed Baird’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
- US court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted the writ discharging the appellee.
- Eisenstadt appealed to US Supreme Court
DECISION: Affirmed judgment of court of appeals.
OPINON: J. Brennan

Facts:
Baird addressed an audience of students and faculty on the subject of birth control and overpopulation.

The discussion consisted of a lecture on the different contraceptive devices (which were on display, as well as on two diagrams atop
two demonstration boards). He also talked about the respective merits of various contraceptives, overpopulation crises in the world,
the large number of abortions performed on unwed mothers, and quack abortionists who may have potential harm to women who hire
their services.

Baird also petitioned members of the audience to petition the Massachusetts Legislature and to make known their feelings.

At the close of his lecture, Baird invited members of the audience to come help themselves to the contraceptive articles.

He personally handed a package of Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman.

Baird was arrested immediately upon handing the article over.

There was no evidence that Baird intended that the young lady take the foam home with her, or that she would not have examined the
article and returned it to Baird.

It was not known whether the woman was married or single.

Important Statutes:
Mass. State law on contraception:
It is a felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument or article for the prevention of contraception except in the case of
(1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a
married person [presenting a registered physician’s presentation.

Equal Protection Clause: Fourteenth Amendment, sec. 1 US Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Case or Controversy: Article III, sec. 2, US Constitution

( This section puts a limit on the jurisdiction of the judge.)

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--
to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies
between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state*--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of
the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or
subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to
law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by
law have directed.

* There is obviously a case involved because a party (BAIRD) has been wronged by a statute created by the state. Thus, the courts
have jurisdiction over this case.

Issues:
1. Whether Baird had the proper standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives. (and
therefore has the right to challenge the validity of the law)
2. Whether or not there was some ground of difference that explains why married and single persons are treated differently in
the clause.

Court Analysis:
1. Whether Baird had the proper standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives.
a. Appellant argues that the appellee lacks standing to assert
b. Ordinarily, a person can only assert his own constitutional rights and immunities, and cannot attack a statute on
the grounds that its application on other people in other situations might be unconstitutional. However, the
judges allowed Baird to attack the statute’s validity because of the following reasons:
i. Baird handed a woman a box of contraceptive foam and was prosecuted because he had violated a
statute.
ii. The relationship between Baird and the people in his audience was not a seller/buyer relationship.
Rather, it was between an advocate of the rights of persons to obtain contraceptives, and of those who
desired to do so. Thus, the act of handing out the foam was in fact, a direct and purposeful defiance of
the statute.
iii. Unmarried persons who are denied access to contraceptives are not subject to prosecution, therefore,
they have no forum in which to assert their own rights. Due to this lack of advocates, Baird is justified
in standing up for them.

2. Whether or not there was some ground of difference that explains why married and single persons are treated differently
in the clause.
i. Under the Equal Protection Clause. All citizens of the United States must be treated equally by the law,
unless there is serious reason for doing so.
ii. If the Mass. Statute cannot defend its discriminatory character, then it will be declared
unconstitutional.
iii. The Mass. Statute distinguishes between three classes of distributees.
1. Only married persons may obtain contraceptives from doctors or druggists on prescription.
2. Single persons may NOT obtain contraceptives from anyone to prevent pregnancy.
3. Married AND single persons may obtain contraceptives from anyone to prevent, not
pregnancy, but the spread of disease.

a. There were three seeming purposes of the Mass. Statute. (1) to promote health (2) to promote morals through the
limitation of fornication and adultery (3) to prohibit contraception per se ( that contraceptives are themselves, evil
things and should not be used at all. )
b. The court ruled out (1) because it was discriminatory, overbroad and not necessary. First, if there is a need to have a
physician prescribe contraceptives, that need is as great for unmarried persons as for married persons. Second, not
all contraceptives are potentially dangerous, thus, the statue swept too broadly in its prohibition. Third, there are
already laws that regulate the distribution of harmful drugs which dangerous contraceptives should fall under.
c. The court ruled out (2). It cannot be a deterrent for pre-marital intercourse because single persons can buy
contraceptives to prevent the spread of disease. Furthermore, the crime of fornication is punishable by three months
in jail. But a violation of the Mass. Statute is punishable by five years. It cannot be right that a person who simply
gives away a contraceptive is punished 20-times more than a person who uses the contraceptive for immoral
purposes.
d. So if the purpose of the law is (3) then it must be declared unconstitutional since it violates the equal protection
clause. Because if contraceptives are per se immoral and prohibited, then why are married persons allowed to buy
contraceptives, and single persons are not? The rights must be the same for the unmarried and married alike.