| Whalen v. Roe | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 13, 1976 Decided February 22, 1977 | |
| Full case name | Whalen, Commissioner of Health of New York v. Roe, et al. |
| Citations | 429 U.S. 589 (more) 97 S. Ct. 869; 51 L. Ed. 2d 64; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 42 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Roe v. Ingraham, 403 F. Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); probable jurisdiction noted, 424 U.S. 907 (1976). |
| Holding | |
| Reversed the District Court, holding that the New York Statutes requiring the collection and storage of a patient's identifying information did not violate a citizen's constitutional right to privacy and it is within the State's police power to collect such information in an attempt to stop illegal drug distribution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Brennan |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), was a case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] The case involved a New York state prescription monitoring law requiring reporting and storing of information concerning all Schedule II drug prescriptions. Physicians were required to report the name of the prescribing physician; the dispensing pharmacy; the drug and dosage; and the patient's name, address, and age. This information was then stored by the New York Department of State.
A group of patients, several doctors who prescribe such drugs, and two associations of physicians brought suit against the New York State Department of Health commissioner, seeking to enjoin the State from enforcing the Act.
A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, held the statutes unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions.[2] On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court, holding that the statutes were within the state's police power. The Supreme Court held that the state need not show the State action was necessary to solve the identified problem and that there was no basis for assuming that the state security provisions would be improperly administered. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's key concerns, holding that the statutes would not significantly deter patients from seeking necessary medication nor would the statutes impair physicians' right to practice medicine free from unwarranted state interference.
- ^ Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ Roe v. Ingraham, 403 F. Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
