Buck v. Bell: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|arguments=Buck's defense argued that involuntary sterilization of Carrie Buck violated her due process rights. | |arguments=Buck's defense argued that involuntary sterilization of Carrie Buck violated her due process rights. | ||
|holding=Carrie Buck is "feeble-minded...promiscuous." It is in the best interest of the state to sterilize her. | |holding=Carrie Buck is "feeble-minded...promiscuous." It is in the best interest of the state to sterilize her. | ||
|reasons=Oliver Wendell Holmes reasoned that the state's interest in preserving the public welfare outweighed Carrie Buck's interest in bodily integrity. | |||
|comments=*[[Constitutional_Liberties#Right_to_Procreate]] | |comments=*[[Constitutional_Liberties#Right_to_Procreate]] | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 13:13, March 5, 2023
Buck v. Bell | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | May 2, 1927 |
Overturned by | |
Skinner v. Oklahoma |
Facts
Carrie Buck had been raped by a relative and given birth to an illegitimate child. She was not employed, had no spouse, and lacked the means to support her child or additional children. Buck had been formally classified as mentally impaired and institutionalized for her cognitive deficits.
Arguments
Buck's defense argued that involuntary sterilization of Carrie Buck violated her due process rights.
Holding
Carrie Buck is "feeble-minded...promiscuous." It is in the best interest of the state to sterilize her.
Reasons
Oliver Wendell Holmes reasoned that the state's interest in preserving the public welfare outweighed Carrie Buck's interest in bodily integrity.