Search results
People also ask
What did the Supreme Court decide in Buck v Bell?
What happened in Buck v Bell?
Why is Buck v Bell important?
Was Buck v Bell a Nazi case?
Was Buck v Bell a precedent?
Who cited Holmes's opinion in Buck v Bell?
Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process ...
Feb 12, 2019 · Buck challenged the Virginia statute, arguing that it is a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Procedural History: The Circuit Court of Amherst County denied Buck relief. The Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia also denied Buck relief, upholding the statute.
ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia which affirmed a judgment ordering Page 274 U. S. 201 the Superintendent of the State Colony of Epileptics and Feeble Minded to perform the operation of salpingectomy on Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error.
Mar 7, 2016 · In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, by a vote of 8 to 1, to uphold a state's right to forcibly sterilize a person considered unfit to procreate. The case, known as Buck v. Bell, centered...
- Facts of The Case
- Legal and Scientific Background
- Appeals Process and Supreme Court
- Legacy
The appellant in Buck v. Bellwas Carrie Elizabeth Buck. In March of that year, the General Assembly passed a law that allowed for the state-enforced sterilization of those deemed genetically unfit for procreation. On September 10, the colony’s board approved a list of sixteen candidates recommended by Superintendent Albert Sidney Priddy for sterili...
Enthusiasm for eugenics coincided with the Progressive Movement, which assumed that society could be improved through laws that encouraged better human behavior. Although eugenic assumptions suggested that such reforms were futile, many Progressives nevertheless embraced the new field, seduced by its modern, scientific connotations. Eugenicists bel...
Whitehead’s brief was less than half as long as Strode’s. It conceded that Carrie Buck was feebleminded while implying the same about her child. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued that sterilization deprived Buck of due process by violating “her bodily integrity” and of equal protection by targeting only a portion of the state’s feebleminde...
In England, where the eugenics movement had started, sterilization laws never took hold. “I do not say that the law ought not, at some future time, to be extended more widely,” the philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in Marriage and Morals(1929). “I say only that our scientific knowledge at present is not adequate for this purpose, and that it is ve...
ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia which affirmed a judgment ordering the Superintendent of the State Colony of Epileptics and Feeble Minded to perform the operation of salpingectomy on Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error.
Bell, because John H. Bell had replaced Priddy at the colony, Whitehead in 1925 appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. Strode's brief argued that due process had been afforded and that state police powers allowed its officers to protect and decide for persons such as Carrie Buck.
