Summary of Buck v.

Bell
Citation: 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Relevant Facts: Carrie Buck, a resident of the State of Virginia, was a “feeble-minded" eighteen year old
woman, whose mother was similarly feeble-minded. Ms. Buck, who was not married, was also the mother
of a child likewise described by the State of Virginia as feeble-minded. In 1924, Virginia passed a statute
authorizing the superintendents of institutions for certain classes of persons afflicted with hereditary
conditions causing insanity of imbecility to order the sterilization of such persons. In order for the
sterilization procedure to proceed, superintendents were required to present a petition to the board of
directors for their institutions, notify the inmate and their guardian, and convene a hearing to present
evidence for and against conducting the procedure. In this case, Dr. John Hendren Bell conducted the
proceedings against Ms. Buck after her first physician passed away during the pendency of her case. Dr.
Bell similarly pushed for sterilization under the statute, based on the same justification.

Issue: May a State, consistent with due process and equal protection, order the sterilization of a woman
deemed mentally deficient by a state agency and review board?
Holding: Yes, states can require the sterilization of certain citizens without breaching constitutional
rights. The statute in question provided adequate safeguards, and appropriate opportunity for notification
and review, to comport with due process requirements.
Reasoning: Justice Holmes delivered a short majority opinion on behalf of the Court. He pointed out that
the challenge to the law before the Court was properly considered a challenge to the law itself, not to
compliance with the safeguards contained therein. He then argued that as the State can require sacrifices
from citizens, up to and including their very lives, it is not unusual to require something less than the
sacrifice of their life on behalf of the public good. Making a policy case, Justice Holmes opined that
society would be better served by preventing reproduction by members of society most likely to produce
progeny dependent on the government. The Court also made clear that the process for review of a
sterilization order properly considered the rights of those whom the State targeted for such procedures.
Finally, Justice Holmes dismissed concerns regarding equal protection. Here he reasoned that while not
all citizens were equally subject to the potential to have their reproductive capacity forfeited, the State
could reasonably direct its attention to those deemed unfit to reproduce and thereby conserve necessary
resources for other prerogatives. Comparing forced sterilization to mandatory vaccination, Justice Holmes
argued that both were for the overall benefit of society. Noting the sad history of Ms. Buck, her mother,
and her child, Justice Holmes suggested that “[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough."

Page 1 of 1