Buck v. Bell
| Decision Date | 02 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 292,292 |
| Parties | BUCK v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. I. P. Whitehead, of Lynchburg, Va., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 201-202 intentionally omitted] Mr. A. E. Strode, of Lynchburg, Va., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 203-205 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia, affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County, by which the defendant in error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her sterile. 143 Va. 310, 130 S. E. 516. The case comes here upon the contention that the statute authorizing the judgment is void under the Fourteenth Amendment as denying to the plaintiff in error due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.
Carrie Buck is a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble-minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia approved March 20, 1924 (Laws 1924, c. 394) recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, etc.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who if now discharged would become a menace but if incapable of procreating might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society; and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, etc. The statute then enacts that whenever the superintendent of certain institutions including the abovenamed State Colony shall be of opinion that it is for the best interest of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, etc., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.
The superintendent first presents a petition to the special board of directors of his hospital or colony, stating the facts and the grounds for his opinion, verified by affidavit. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing in the institution is to be served upon the inmate, and also upon his guardian, and if there is no guardian the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conservatorship of Valerie N.
...violations of constitutional rights carried out with the approval of the highest judicial tribunals. (See, e.g., Buck v. Bell (1927) 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000.) In the first half of this century, approximately 60,000 people were subjected to compulsory sterilization in the U......
-
Jones v. Russell
... ... discretion in dealing with practical exigencies ... Commonwealth v. Goldburg, 167 Ky. 108, 180 S.W. 68; ... Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed ... 1000, affirming 143 Va. 310, 130 S.E. 516, 51 A. L. R. 855 ... The ... ...
-
Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.
...did. Id. The cases walk hand-in-hand.This history isn't all rosy. Unsuccessful thus far, the students turn to Buck v. Bell , 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927). In a rather infamous case, an eight-member majority, save for one dissenting justice, upheld the involuntary sterili......
-
Sinclair v. State
... ... Constitution. Smith v. Wayne Probate Judge, 231 ... Mich. 409, 204 N.W. 140, 40 A. L. R. 515; Buck v ... Bell, 143 Va. 310, 130 S.E. 516, 51 A. L. R. 855; ... Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed ... 1000. When compared with ... ...
-
Disability Wrongs, Disability Rights
...words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200, 1927) for an example of how eugenics, a popular application of Anglo-Saxon supremacy philosophy and pseudo-science, set a legal precedent a......
-
Restitution For Victims Of North Carolina's Involuntary Sterilization Program Does Not Mark The End Of American Eugenics Laws
...of the sterilization of Carrie Buck, a Virginia woman who had been institutionalized as "feeble minded," in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Later scholarship indicates that Carrie had likely been raped by a successful doctor who employed her as his housekeeper and insisted on her being c......
-
Disability Constitutional Law
...laws allowing human sterilization). The right to enforce forcible sterilization laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).60. Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 466 (Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) ("It is natural that evolving sta......
-
Reevaluating Suspect Classifications
...Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); see also Barbara A. Babcock, et al., Sex Discrimination and the Law (1975). 36. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 208 (1927) (describing the Equal Protection Clause as the "last resort of constitutional arguments"); see also Klarman, supra note 25, at 750 ......
-
Table of Cases
...257, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989), 1243 Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149 (1917), 1109-10 Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927), Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 45 S.Ct. 324, 69 L.Ed. 623 (1923), 865 Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home,......
-
How Ohio v. Talty provided for future bans on procreation and the consequences that action brings: Ohio v. Talty: hiding in the shadow of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
...a right held within the fundamental right to procreate. See generally Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). (29)Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (30) Id. (31) Id. (32) Buck, 274 U.S. at 205. In 1980, however, Carrie Buck was evaluated as a woman of normal intelligence and was riving w......
-
Chapter 130, SCR 47 – Eugenics.
...the nation's first eugenics-based sterilization law in 1907; and WHEREAS, In the United States Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell (1927) 274 U.S. 200, Carrie Buck sued to overturn a Virginia state law that allowed state-mandated reproductive sterilization of persons whom the state deemed "i......