Buck v. Bell
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a 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 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It was widely believed to have been slightly weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals (and came to a contrary result). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has
1927 in the United States274 U.S. 200African Americans and birth controlAnticanonArthur EstabrookArthur KlepsBuck v. bellBuck v BellBuck vs. BellCarrie BuckClarence DarrowClarence ThomasCompulsory sterilizationCompulsory sterilization of disabled people in the U.S. prison systemDisability and women's healthDisability in the United StatesEugenics Board of North CarolinaEugenics in the United StatesFeeble-mindedHarry H. LaughlinHistory of eugenicsImbecileIntelligence and public policyIntelligence quotientIvey Foreman LewisJacobson v. MassachusettsJoseph DeJarnetteJudgment at NurembergJudgment at Nuremberg (Playhouse 90)Jukes familyKingsley v. HendricksonList of United States Supreme Court cases by the Taft CourtList of sex-related court cases in the United StatesLouis_BrandeisLynchburg,_VirginiaMadison_Heights,_VirginiaMarlee MatlinMay 1927Model actOctober 1927
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Buck v. Bell
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a 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 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It was widely believed to have been slightly weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals (and came to a contrary result). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has
has abstract
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (19 ...... worst Supreme Court decisions.
@en
Бак против Белла, 274 U.S. 200 ...... размножения дефектных особей.
@ru
巴克訴貝爾案(Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. ...... 認為是擁護消極優生學的代表。最高法院至今仍未推翻該判決結果。
@zh
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,025,515,875
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Buck v. Bell,
@en
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Butler
@en
float
right
@en
fullname
Carrie Buck v. John Hendren Be ...... r Epileptics and Feeble Minded
@en
googlescholar
Holding
The Court upheld a statute ins ...... tion and health of the state."
@en
JoinMajority
Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Sanford, Stone
@en
justia
Litigants
Buck v. Bell
@en
majority
Holmes
@en
other source
Professor Thomas D. Russell
@en
other url
ParallelCitations
Prior
Buck v. Bell, 143 Va. 310, 130 S.E. 516
@en
superseded
Skinner v. Oklahoma
@en
video
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (19 ...... h Disabilities Act of 1990 has
@en
Бак против Белла, 274 U.S. 200 ...... размножения дефектных особей.
@ru
巴克訴貝爾案(Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. ...... 認為是擁護消極優生學的代表。最高法院至今仍未推翻該判決結果。
@zh
label
Buck v. Bell
@en
Бак против Белла
@ru
巴克訴貝爾案
@zh
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
Carrie Buckv. John Hendren Bel ...... r Epileptics and Feeble Minded
@en