Eisenstadt v. Baird

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Family Law

405 U.S. 438 (1972)

Updated August 1, 2026

privacynon-maritalequal protectioncontraceptionstandingEqual Protection Clausecontraceptivesmarital status classifications

Facts

Massachusetts law made it a felony to give away contraceptive articles except that registered physicians could prescribe them to married persons and pharmacists could furnish them to married persons on prescription. At a lecture on contraception at Boston University, Baird displayed contraceptive devices and at the end gave a young woman a package of Emko vaginal foam. The state court set aside his conviction for exhibiting contraceptives but sustained his conviction for giving away the foam. As construed by the Massachusetts courts, the statute allowed married persons limited access to contraceptives, denied single persons access for pregnancy prevention, and allowed contraceptives to anyone for disease prevention.

Issue

Whether Baird had standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives, and whether Massachusetts could, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, treat married and unmarried persons differently in access to contraceptives. More specifically, the question was whether any rational basis supported the statute's distinction between married and unmarried persons.

Rule

Under the Equal Protection Clause, a statutory classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest on some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. Where a state distinguishes between married and unmarried persons in access to contraceptives, the distinction is invalid if the asserted purposes do not rationally explain the different treatment. A litigant may assert third-party constitutional rights when he has an adequate incentive to do so and enforcement of the statute materially impairs the rights of those who are not in an effective position to assert their own claims.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nolan Price runs a nonprofit that advocates broader access to reproductive products. He is prosecuted under a state law that makes it a crime to distribute contraceptives to unmarried adults, while the adults who seek to obtain them face no criminal liability and have no direct administrative procedure to challenge the law.

If Nolan challenges the statute on behalf of unmarried adults, which is the strongest argument that he has standing?

Explanation. The majority held that a litigant may assert third-party rights when he has an adequate incentive to do so and enforcement materially impairs the third parties' interests, especially when those right-holders lack an effective forum because they are not themselves prosecuted. The Court emphasized that a professional relationship is not required.