Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (CASE DIGEST) Poe vs. Ullman, 367 US 479

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    40 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a challenge to a Connecticut statute prohibiting contraception was not ripe for review because the state had never attempted to enforce the statute, so the plaintiffs could not show they had suffered an injury or would be prosecuted for violating the statute. The case involved couples and their physician challenging the statute, arguing its prohibition on contraceptive devices and advice was unconstitutional, but the Court found no evidence the state would attempt enforcement.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    129. (CASE DIGEST) Poe vs. Ullman, 367 US 479

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that a challenge to a Connecticut statute prohibiting contraception was not ripe for review because the state had never attempted to enforce the statute, so the plaintiffs could not show they had suffered an injury or would be prosecuted for violating the statute. The case involved couples and their physician challenging the statute, arguing its prohibition on contraceptive devices and advice was unconstitutional, but the Court found no evidence the state would attempt enforcement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    40 views1 page

    (CASE DIGEST) Poe vs. Ullman, 367 US 479

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    The Supreme Court ruled that a challenge to a Connecticut statute prohibiting contraception was not ripe for review because the state had never attempted to enforce the statute, so the plaintiffs could not show they had suffered an injury or would be prosecuted for violating the statute. The case involved couples and their physician challenging the statute, arguing its prohibition on contraceptive devices and advice was unconstitutional, but the Court found no evidence the state would attempt enforcement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Poe v.

    Ullman

    Brief Fact Summary. The Appellants, several couples and their physician (Appellants), brought
    suit, seeking the overturn of a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices
    and the giving of medical advice on the use of such devices.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law. A penal statute is not ripe for constitutional challenge unless it is
    enforced by the state enacting the statute.

    Facts. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors construed a state penal statute as prohibiting
    the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice on their use. Appellants
    included a couple who had several pregnancies result with severely abnormal progeny which
    died shortly after birth, a couple whose wife had experienced a severely traumatic pregnancy and
    their physician, who believes the safest course of treatment for the couples includes using
    contraceptive devices.

    Issue. Is the petitioners’ claim ripe for judicial review?

    Held. No. Judgment affirmed. Connecticut has never attempted to fully prosecute any case under
    the statute. Because of this, not only have the Appellants not suffered injury in fact from the
    statute, but there is no evidence that they would be prosecuted for acting in violation of the
    statute.

    You might also like