CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES, INC. 431 U.S. 678 (1977)

FACTS: New York had a law that made it a crime for anyone to sell of distribute any type of contraceptive to a minor under the age of 16 and for anyone to advertise of display contraceptives

ISSUE: May a state ban the advertising of nonprescription over the counter contraceptives, prohibit sales to minors under 16 years of age, and allow sales only by licensed pharmacists to those over 16? Must any state action infringing upon a fundamental liberty interest be justified only by a compelling state interest and be 'narrowly drawn' to express only the legitimate state interests at stake? Does the right to privacy for procreation extend to those areas of life necessary and proper to exercise those rights?

RULE OF LAW: A state may not ban the advertising of nonprescription over the counter contraceptives, prohibit sales to minors under 16 years of age, nor allows sales only by licensed pharmacists Any state action infringing upon a fundamental liberty interest can be justified only by a compelling state interest and must be 'narrowly drawn' to express only the legitimate state interests at stake The right to privacy for procreation extends to those areas of life necessary and proper to exercise those rights See Legal Analysis below for issues related to the freedom of association

HOLDING: The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brennan, held that (1) corporation primarily engaged in mail order retail sale of nonmedical contraceptive devices had standing to challenge statute not only in its own right but also on behalf of potential customers; (2) regulations imposing burden on decision as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child may be justified only by compelling state interest and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests; (3) prohibition of distribution of nonmedical contraceptives to persons over 16 except through licensed pharmacist burdened right of individuals to use contraceptives if they so desired and served no compelling state interest and (4) prohibition of any advertisement or display of contraceptives was unconstitutional.

Concurring: (White, Justice) The State has not demonstrated that the prohibition against distribution of contraceptives to minors measurably contributes to the deterrent purposes, which the State advances as justification for the restriction

Concurring: (Powell, Justice) A requirement of prior parental consent is merely one illustration of permissible regulation in this area As long as parental distribution is permitted, a State should have substantial latitude in regulating the distribution of contraceptives to minors