Poe v. Ullman: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=367 U.S. 497 (1961) |date=1961 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned= |partially_...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= |
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
Poe v. Ullman | |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | 367 U.S. 497 (1961) |
Date decided | 1961 |
Facts
A doctor wanted to prescribe contraceptives to his patients but there was state law forbidding use, although such law had never been invoked. So, instead of risking prosecution under this statute, the doctor filed an action claiming the law’s unconstitutionality.
Issues
Whether the court may decide on the constitutionality of a law when it is unlikely that the plaintiff will be prosecuted for violating the law.
Judgment
Dismissed.
Rule
The mere existence of a state penal statute would constitute insufficient grounds to support a federal court’s adjudication of its constitutionality in proceeding brought against the State’s prosecuting officials if real threat of enforcement is wanting.