by Collin Derrig, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 93
I. Introduction
The history of the United States Supreme Court is rife with abhorrent decisions that the Court has later explicitly rejected.[1] As society has changed and evolved, the Court’s jurisprudence has evolved with it. However, the Court has not rectified all of its past mistakes. One such mistake is the 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell.[2] In Buck, the Court endorsed the compulsory eugenic sterilization of the “feebleminded” as proper state action.[3] Following Buck, over thirty states either passed new eugenic sterilization laws or began implementing existing laws.[4] Between the late 1920s and 1970s, at least 60,000 “unfit” Americans were forcibly sterilized by their states.[5] People deemed unfit were typically those with disabilities (especially women), people of color (especially African Americans), and people of low socioeconomic status.[6] Even children were sterilized by state governments.[7]
This blog will argue that eugenic sterilization is presumptively unconstitutional, and that Buck v. Bell must be overturned as it was wrongly decided. First, Part II will introduce the eugenics movement and its prominent status in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. Then, Part II will review Buck v. Bell and its aftermath while briefly touching upon several related cases and the status of sterilization laws today. Finally, Part II will introduce Dobbs v. Jackson,[8] a 2022 Supreme Court case that outlined five factors that must be considered when overturning precedent. Part III will argue that Buck was wrongly decided and fails the Dobbs factors. Part III will also examine the pressing moral and ethical reasons that indicate the current need to overturn Buck. Part IV will conclude by reminding attorneys of the consequences that come with repressive laws and will call on attorneys to always deeply consider the widespread effects of their work.
II. Background
Section A will provide a short definition of eugenics and a brief introduction to the American eugenics movement. Section B will examine Buck v. Bell and the related cases Skinner v. Oklahoma and Poe v. Lynchburg, as well as these cases’ impact on the lives of Americans. Section C will briefly outline the current state of sterilization laws throughout the United States. Finally, Section D will discuss more recent substantive due process cases that explicitly recognize the ability to reproduce as a fundamental right. Section D will also discuss Dobbs v. Jackson, which provides a five-factor test for analyzing the quality of past Supreme Court decisions.
A. Defining Eugenics and the American Eugenics Movement
Eugenics roughly translated from Greek means “good birth.”[9] This term was coined by Francis Galton, a scientist who believed that the human race could be improved through “positive” eugenics—the breeding of “good” people with other “good” people to produce better people.[10] Implied in the idea of “positive” eugenics is the concept of “negative” eugenics, or the prevention of the breeding of so-called “unfit” people—the feeble-minded, the disabled, non-whites, the immoral, and the criminally disposed.[11] Eugenicists believed that these undesirable traits were inherited genetically, much like hair color or skin tone are inherited.[12] Throughout the mid-to-late nineteenth century, Galton’s ideas spread like wildfire through the privileged and educated elements of Western Society.[13]
By the turn of the twentieth century, the American Eugenics movement was supported by prominent Americans such as Theodore Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.[14] Throughout the country, eugenicist doctors and policymakers contemplated what to do about the “unfit” who burdened society.[15] The most extreme eugenicists proposed killing the unfit; however, this idea never gained widespread support in the United States.[16] Others proposed and passed various marriage laws, including laws forbidding interracial marriage.[17] Among the most popular eugenic proposals was the sterilization of the “feebleminded” and other unfit individual to prevent their unfit offspring from “swamping” society.[18]
The label “feebleminded” has no true definition, but it was generally applied to people who were considered of lesser intelligence or mentally disabled in some manner.[19] The label “feebleminded” was often applied arbitrarily and varied from place to place based on a variety of factors, including race, socioeconomic status, and sexual behavior.[20] Similar terms to describe “unfit” individuals included “moron” and “imbecile.”[21]
The objective of sterilization was to permanently take away an “unfit” person’s ability to reproduce.[22] For males, this was typically accomplished either by full castration or later vasectomy.[23] For females, this was typically accomplished by hysterectomy, salpingectomy (the removal of the fallopian tubes), or oophorectomy (the removal of the ovaries).[24]
B. The Sterilization Cases and their Aftermath
In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization law in the United States.[25] The law called for the involuntary sterilization of criminals, idiots, and imbeciles.[26] Some states followed Indiana’s lead and passed similar sterilization laws, while other states rejected similar proposals.[27] However, the 1907 Indiana Eugenics Law and its brethren were never put into action as they were rejected by both state and federal courts.[28]
By the early 1920s, Harry Laughlin, one of the lead advocates of eugenic sterilization, wrote a new model law designed to avoid the procedural and constitutional hurdles that halted earlier attempts at eugenic sterilization laws.[29] In March 1924, Virginia passed the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924 (“Virginia Act”), modeled after Laughlin’s model statute.[30] The Virginia law provided a detailed procedural process by which doctors would determine that a person was unfit and must be sterilized.[31] After this determination, the hospital board would vote on whether to approve the sterilization.[32] Then, after a final decision from the board of the hospital, the family or an appointed guardian would have the opportunity to appeal the person’s sterilization to the state court system.[33] After sterilization, “unfit” individuals could be released back into the public as they were no longer a threat to produce unfit offspring.[34] Thus, in eugenic theory, producing a benefit to both society and the sterilized person.[35]
1. Buck v. Bell
Among the Virginia Act’s leading proponents was the leadership of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded (“the Colony”).[36] Founded in the 1890s, the Colony was a facility for the treatment and isolation of epileptics and the feebleminded—people often labeled prime candidates for sterilization.[37] Following the Virginia Act’s passage, the head of the Colony and devoted eugenicist Dr. Albert Priddy quickly went about selecting a test case for the law.[38] He decided on eighteen-year-old Carrie Buck.[39] Dr. Priddy selected, at least in part, Ms. Buck because she was identified as one of three generations of “feebleminded” women from the same family.[40] Ms. Buck’s mother, Emma, had been committed to the Colony several years earlier and Ms. Buck’s infant daughter, Vivian, was diagnosed as a feebleminded baby by a nurse who observed she had a look that was “not quite normal.”[41] Ms. Buck had been committed to the Colony at seventeen years old after her foster family reported she was mentally deficient and had become pregnant.[42] In line with the procedural requirements of the Virginia Act, Ms. Buck was appointed a legal guardian who then hired attorney Irving Whitehead to represent her on appeal of the decision to sterilize her.[43] After a brief trial, where Whitehead presented no defense and conceded that Ms. Buck was “feebleminded,” the trial court determined that Ms. Buck’s sterilization was both in her interest and that of the state.[44]
Ms. Buck’s case reached the United States Supreme Court in 1927 after the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld the trial court’s determination.[45] Ms. Buck argued that her sterilization was an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural and substantive Due Process protections, as well as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.[46] However, the Court held that the eugenic sterilization of Ms. Buck, now twenty-one years old, was a constitutional use of state police power in pursuit of public health.[47]
In his three-page majority opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.—a known supporter of eugenics—dismissed Ms. Buck’s arguments in turn.[48] First, he determined that the Virginia Act’s procedural protections provided constitutionally sufficient due process.[49] Next, Justice Holmes rejected Ms. Buck’s substantive due process claim, stating that just as the best of society can be asked to give their lives, so too can the worst of society be asked to sacrifice to “prevent our being swamped with incompetence.”[50] Justice Holmes argued that “it is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”[51] In his eyes, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”[52]
Finally, Justice Holmes quickly dismissed Ms. Buck’s equal protection argument that the Virginia Act was discriminatory because the only people at risk of being sterilized were those who were institutionalized in facilities like the Colony.[53] Justice Holmes rejected this argument.[54] In Holmes’ opinion the law was not discriminatory because after a person is sterilized, they may be released.[55] This would then open up space in institutions for non-sterilized individuals who could then be sterilized.[56]
Following the decision in Buck, other states passed eugenic sterilization laws or updated already existing sterilization laws and began sterilizing people.[57] Between the Buck decision and the 1970s, over 60,000 Americans were sterilized.[58] However, the effect of Buck was not limited to the United States, other Western nations including Canada and most horrifically Nazi Germany, adopted their eugenic sterilization laws post-Buck.[59] The United States pioneered eugenic sterilization and others followed leading to upwards of half a million eugenic sterilizations worldwide in the decades immediately following the decision.[60]
Among those sterilized in the U.S. were Carrie Buck and her younger sister, Doris.[61] Both girls were permanently deprived of their ability to have children.[62] It was not until decades after her sterilization that the extensive work and research of historian and legal scholar Paul Lombardo revealed that Ms. Buck’s sterilization case was built on lies.[63] First, Ms. Buck’s pregnancy that led to her commitment was the result of being raped by her foster parent’s nephew.[64] Her foster parents had Ms. Buck committed to save their family’s reputation.[65] Second, evidence now suggests that neither Ms. Buck nor her daughter Vivian suffered from any sort of learning disability.[66] Finally, Ms. Buck’s legal counsel, Irving Whitehead, was a founding board member of the Colony, supported eugenic sterilization, and was a close friend of the state’s attorney, Audrey Strode.[67]
2. Skinner v. Oklahoma
Oklahoma was one of the states that passed eugenic sterilization laws post-Buck.[68] However, one of the Oklahoma laws also added mandatory sterilization of criminals if they were convicted of three or more felonies of “moral turpitude.”[69] This law was challenged in Skinner v. Oklahoma.[70] In Skinner, Justice Douglas determined that the right to reproduce was fundamental and therefore deserving of strict scrutiny analysis.[71] The Court determined that sterilization as a criminal punishment was unconstitutional as it was applied arbitrarily, it was cruel, and criminality was not an inherited trait.[72]
Despite holding the Oklahoma law unconstitutional, the majority and Justice Jackson’s concurrence explicitly distinguished Buck as an example of how sterilization could be constitutionally permissible in the right circumstances.[73] The Court distinguished the Virginia Act from the Oklahoma law based on procedure and advances in science.[74] Justice Douglas reasoned that science had not proven that criminality was a trait that could be inherited, so there was no non-punitive justification for sterilizing criminals.[75] Buck and the Virginia Act, on the other hand, were permissible because it was a scientifically based public health measure.[76]
3. Poe v. Lynchburg
Most recently, Buck and the constitutionality of eugenic sterilization were reaffirmed in the District Court of Virginia’s 1981 decision Poe v. Lynchburg.[77] In Poe, ACLU attorneys attempted to sue Virginia in a class action 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit on behalf of the over five thousand Virginians who were sterilized post-Buck.[78] The lawsuit directly challenged Buck under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that eugenic sterilization should be reconsidered as unconstitutional.[79] The ACLU also raised claims focusing on the fact that many of those sterilized were never told that they had been sterilized.[80] Rather inmates being sterilized were frequently simply told that they were receiving a necessary medical procedure.[81]
The district court rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claim, as sterilization was performed in line with Buck and that because the Virginia Act had been repealed in 1974 there was no cause to challenge the continued use of the law.[82] Ultimately, the state of Virginia settled with the plaintiffs in 1985.[83] Since Poe did not advance past the district court, the Supreme Court did not have an opportunity to reconsider its holding in Buck. Therefore, aside from Skinner, no serious challenges to the constitutionality of Buck have arisen since it was decided nearly a century ago.
C. The Current State of Involuntary Sterilization Laws in the United States
The eugenic sterilization laws passed and put into effect in the seventies were generally repealed and replaced with more stringent involuntary sterilization statutes in the 1970s and 80s.[84] The last of the eugenic sterilization laws were overturned in the late 2000s and only Arkansas’s current statute allows for a similarly broad class of people to be sterilized.[85] Contemporary involuntary sterilization is not typically justified by eugenics reasoning, but frequently out of concern that disabled persons are incapable of taking care of children.[86] Various state laws allow parents or guardians to seek involuntary sterilization for their disabled children or adult dependents.[87] As of 2022, thirty-one states and the District of Columbia allow for involuntary sterilization.[88] Of those jurisdictions, seventeen allow for minors to be involuntarily sterilized.[89]
Additionally, despite the United States’ departure from eugenic sterilization laws over the last fifty years, many disability and women’s rights advocates are concerned that the assumptions about disabled people that informed Buck and the eugenics movement underlie how courts evaluate individuals in sterilization procedures and other areas of disability law.[90] These experts and advocates feel that Buck is representative of these failings in the American legal system and broader culture.[91]
D. Contemporary Substantive Due Process and Dobbs v. Jackson
Since the Supreme Court’s explicit approval of eugenic sterilization in Buck, the doctrine of substantive due process has evolved substantially over the last hundred years. The Court has explicitly rejected other laws popularized and supported by the eugenics movement, such as anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia.[92] The Court has recognized that some rights are fundamental by their very nature, such as the right to reproduce.[93] The logic at the heart of these contemporary substantive due process cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving, and Obergefell v. Hodges runs counter to Buck.[94]
More recently, the Court provided a more extensive test for examining past decisions.[95] In Dobbs v. Jackson, Justice Alito lists five factors for analyzing whether stare decisis should be ignored and a prior decision should be overturned: (1) the nature of the Court’s error, (2) the quality of the Court’s reasoning in the prior decision, (3) the “workability” of the rules imposed in the prior decision, (4) the decision’s disruptive effect on other areas of the law, and (5) whether the prior decision’s holding has been relied on.[96]
In Dobbs, Justice Alito provided explanations of each of the five factors he described. The nature of the Court’s error reflects the way the Court has erred, such as overstepping its boundaries.[97] The quality of the reasoning factor looks at the type of reasoning, or lack thereof, employed by the Court and whether the Court is relying on text, history, or precedent.[98] The workability factor looks at the legal standard created in a case and whether it can be applied in a consistent and predictable manner.[99] The effect on other areas factor looks towards whether a decision has distorted or disturbed other legal doctrines.[100] Finally, the reliance factor looks at whether overruling the decision will directly impact concrete reliance issues.[101]
IV. Discussion
The Discussion will analyze Buck under the Dobbs factors and demonstrate that if applied properly, Buck should be overturned.
A. Buck v. Bell Must Be Overturned
Despite states changing their sterilization laws to move away from eugenics, many of the same flaws and stereotyping of disabled people that informed eugenics still inform modern courts.[102] Ideally, the issue of eugenics sterilization does not rear its ugly head in American courts again. This article argues that should a state employ this style of compulsory sterilization again; the Supreme Court should grant certiorari and overturn Buck by applying the Dobbs factors. Not only must eugenical laws be repudiated by the Court, but, perhaps even more importantly, so must eugenical reasoning. There is always a serious risk of rights deprivation when courts and attorneys on all sides fail to be attentive to the biases and prejudices that inform us and society.
1. The Nature of the Buck Court’s Error
First, the Buck Court committed a grave factual and systemic error that weighs in favor of overturning the decision. The court failed to consider whether states and localities would provide actual procedural due process or just the appearance of it. The facts of Buck v. Bell itself exemplify this.
At first glance, the Virginia Act provided Ms. Buck with adequate procedural due process. The Virginia Act provided that an individual to be sterilized had to be determined unfit by the Colony superintendent; the sterilization must have been approved by the Colony’s board; and the individual was allowed to appeal in civil court.[103] Yet, Ms. Buck was specifically selected for this test case by Mr. Priddy and the board of directors of the Colony, biased actors in favor of advancing the eugenics movement and preventing further “feeble-minded” blights on society.[104] Their experts advocated for Ms. Buck’s sterilization in the state courts and at the Supreme Court.[105] Yet, these assertions and beliefs about Ms. Buck and her family went unchallenged and unresisted.[106]
Perhaps, most egregiously, Ms. Buck’s state-appointed guardian selected Irving Whitehead, a friend of both Dr. Priddy and the state’s attorney Aubrey Strode, to be Ms. Buck’s advocate.[107] There was no due process to protect Ms. Buck from permanent surgical sterilization. There was no check on the state, no advocacy for her, no defense – only capitulation.[108] From the examination room to the halls of the Supreme Court Ms. Buck was alone. There was no due process, merely an illusion of it, which was satisfactory enough for eight Supreme Court justices.[109]
Broadly, the allegations of Poe v. Lynchburg and history suggest that most of those who were sterilized never received true due process.[110] All the Supreme Court did was enable a system where state “experts” would arbitrarily label people as undesirables, and then permanently deprive them of their ability to have children. The fact that many sterilized individuals were never told that they were sterilized evidences this dark truth.[111] The Buck Court was far too deferential to the state; ultimately costing Carrie Buck and tens of thousands of Americans their ability to have children.[112]
2. The Court’s Reasoning in the Buck Decision
The quality of reasoning in Buck is poor at best, as Justice Holmes employed a completely deferential version of rational basis review despite the right at issue—the right to reproduce—being foundational.[113] Justice Holmes uncritically accepted the scientific assertions of Virginia’s government and brushes aside the implications of such a decision on Ms. Buck and others like her. Justice Holmes asserted that sterilization is good for her and society.[114]
The closest thing to actual reasoning Justice Holmes seemed to employ was an absurd one-sentence assertion that eugenic sterilization is grounded in the same principle as compulsory vaccination.[115] Justice Holmes failed to recognize the radical difference between a vaccination to prevent the spread of disease and a surgery meant to permanently take away a person’s ability to have children.[116] To make matters worse, he describes permanent sterilization as a “lesser sacrifice” owed by those who already “sap the strength of society.”[117] Justice Holmes dismisses the individual rights of those with “undesirable” traits as if they were no more than insects to be squashed and brushed aside. The Court’s complete dismissal of the humanity of “unfit” people is the Buck decision’s worst quality and, more than any of the other factors, is why it must be overturned if we desire a system that truly honors and values the principle of justice for all.
3. The Workability of Buck
The Court’s ruling in Buck is certainly workable and would likely weigh against overturning Buck. Following the ruling in Buck, courts need simply to apply a rule that when a state seeks involuntary sterilization for public health reasons there is no constitutional violation so long as the state provided adequate procedural due process. In Poe v. Lynchburg the rule of Buck was applied in this straightforward manner and the district court determined that the involuntary sterilizations at issue were constitutional.[118] Applying the rule was a simple process. However, just because a rule is workable does not mean that the other factors should not outweigh it in this case. Workability is simply one factor.
4. The Buck Decision’s Effect on Other Areas of Law
Explaining the Buck decision’s effect on other areas of the law is difficult, as it is not always direct. According to experts and advocates, Buck’s effect lives on as an influence and a reflection of the United States’ legal system’s failures to properly recognize the rights of women, people of color, and the disabled.[119] The extreme deference given by the Buck Court to the assertions made by the state of Virginia mirrors how the voices of disabled individuals are frequently drowned out in competency hearings and other proceedings.[120]
A more concrete example of Buck’s effects on law more broadly is its effects on international law.[121] Nazi Germany and other Western nations developed and accelerated eugenic sterilization programs inspired by the Virginia Act.[122] Even the defense attorneys representing Nazi war criminals who oversaw eugenic sterilization programs pointed at Buck.[123] The very existence of Buck put into question the legitimacy of American courts and the American state. The broad influence of Buck should weigh heavily against it when considering its effects on law both domestic and international.
5. Whether Buck’s Holding Has Been Relied Upon
Addressing the final factor, there was significant reliance on the Buck decision at one point.[124] Dozens of states passed eugenic sterilization laws in the wake of the Buck decision.[125] However, as time has passed and eugenics has become disfavored, as most states have updated their sterilization laws to more narrowly define who may be sterilized.[126] As of 2022, only one state, Arkansas, maintains a sterilization statute that is similarly permissive as the Virginia Act at issue in Buck.[127] As such, if the Court did overturn Buck, there would be little direct effect on active law, and it would put the Court in line with current understandings of science and society’s rejection of eugenics.[128] The Court has already held that the sterilization of people to prevent criminality was unconstitutional as it was not scientifically based.[129] Now, nearly a century after Buck, contemporary science still struggles to understand the complicated nature of human genetic inheritance.[130] What’s more, contemporary science has largely disproven the mistaken and false assumptions that eugenics was built on.[131]
IV. Conclusion
Thankfully, the direct impact of Buck is not felt heavily today, and the popularity of eugenics has waned. However, that does not erase the effects of Buck on tens of thousands of Americans, many of whom came from poor and minority communities. For their differences and perceived inability these Americans fundamental right to have children was permanently taken away. The sort of thinking that leads to decisions like Buck has never gone away. The eugenicists who sterilized Ms. Buck did so because she was deemed a burden on society and government coffers. Some people even believed they were helping her. This sort of paternalistic thinking is ever present and dangerous. Attorneys and policymakers must constantly question the very basis of their actions and be mindful of the ever-present risks when we are blinded by our own biases. If presented with the opportunity to overturn Buck, the Court should take it and condemn the failures of the past. However, attorneys must also learn from the mistakes of the past and make sure to never dismiss the humanity of the least among us again. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in the Letter from the Birmingham Jail, “An unjust law is no law at all.”
[1] The most famous example of this phenomenon in the American public conscious is likely the rejection of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and its acceptance of racial segregation in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Shawnee Cnty. Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), supplemented sub nom. Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
[2] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
[3] Id. at 207-208.
[4] Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Update ed. 2022).
[5] See id. at xii; See also The Supreme Court Ruling That Led TO 70,000 Forced Sterilizations, NPR (March 7,2016), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations [https://perma.cc/2MTN-APG6].
[6] See Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, Nat’l Women’s L. Ctr. (Jan. 24, 2022), https://nwlc.org/resource/forced-sterilization-of-disabled-people-in-the-united-states/.
[7] See Lombardo, supra note 4; See also Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6.
[8] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
[9] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 7.
[10] Id. at 7-8.
[11] Id. at 7-8; See also Jasmine E. Harris, Why Buck v. Bell Still Matters, Petrie-Flom Ctr., https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2020/10/14/why-buck-v-bell-still-matters/ (last visited Apr. 8, 2025) [https://perma.cc/Z8UR-RDED].
[12] Lombardo, supra note 4. at 30-32.
[13] See generally id. at 7-56 (In the first four chapters of his book Paul Lombardo provides a detailed summary of the evolution of the growth of the eugenics movement in the United States and to a lesser degree Europe.).
[14] See generally id.
[15] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 30-56.
[16] Id. at 31.
[17] Id. at 45.
[18] Id. at 42-56.
[19] Id. at 15-19.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id. at 20-29.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 24; See also Indiana Eugenics History & Legacy 1907-2007: Project Overview, Univ. of Ind., https://eugenics.indianapolis.iu.edu/ (last visited Apr. 8, 2025) [https://perma.cc/7NCX-73Y2].
[26] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 24; Indiana Eugenics History & Legacy 1907-2007: Project Overview, supra note 25.
[27] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 24-27.
[28] Id.; See also Indiana Eugenics History & Legacy 1907-2007: Project Overview, supra note 25.
[29] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 78-90.
[30] Code of Virginia 46(B) § 1095h-m (1924) (“Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924”); See Id. at 97.
[31] Code of Virginia 46(B) § 1095h (1924).
[32] Id. at § 1095i.
[33] Id. at § 1095j-k.
[34] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 98.
[35] Id. at 97-100.
[36] Id. at 90-102 (This chapter of the book provides a detailed account of the drafting and advocacy for the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924 that was undertaken by leadership and associates of the Colony.).
[37] Id. at 11-15.
[38] Id. at 101-102; See also Id. at 58-77 (This Chapter provides a detailed look at Dr. Priddy’s pre-Buck activities. Dr. Priddy was a devotee of the eugenic movement who performed dozens of extra judiciary involuntary eugenic sterilizations in the 1910s. His advocacy was central to the passage of the eugenic sterilization act.).
[39] Id. at 102.
[40] Id. at 108-109; Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927) (This factual assertion by the State of Virginia is the basis of Justice Holmes infamous statement that, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”).
[41] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 105-107, 117 (Somewhat suspiciously the nurse, Caroline Wilhelm, had not originally noticed anything out of the ordinary with baby Vivian, but quite conveniently had a change of heart by the time of Buck’s trial.).
[42] Id. at 103-104.
[43] Id. at 107.
[44] Id. at 136-149 (This chapter of the book provides a detailed guide of Whitehead’s defense or lack thereof.).
[45] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); See id. at 150 (The case, originally Buck v. Priddy became Buck v. Bell during the appellate process. Dr. Priddy had been ailing at the time of Buck’s original trial and passed away shortly thereafter. Dr. John Bell, already a doctor at the Colony, became the new head of the Colony and replaced Dr. Priddy as the named defendant.).
[46] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927).
[47] Id.
[48] Id. at 206-208.
[49] Id. at 206-207.
[50] Id. at 207.
[51] Id.
[52] Id.
[53] Id. at 208.
[54] Id.
[55] Id.
[56] Id.
[57] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 307-308 (Appendix C of Lombardo’s book breaks down sterilization laws by state, when they were passed, repealed, and how many people were sterilized under them.).
[58] Id. at xii; See also NPR, supra note 5.
[59] Id. at 199-203, 217.
[60] Id. at xii.
[61] Id. at 185-187 (See these pages for a description of both Carrie and Doris’ lives leading up to their sterilization. Carrie was twenty-two at the time of her sterilization. Doris Buck was only thirteen the youngest of the first batch of inmates selected to be sterilized by the Colony.).
[62] Id.
[63] See generally id. at 112-148 (In his two chapters breaking down Carrie Bucks trial, Paul Lombardo weaves throughout the lies and misconceptions that were used against Ms. Buck.)
[64] Id. at 139-140.
[65] Id. at 139-141.
[66] Id. at 139, 189-90. (In his extensive research Lombardo discovered the school report cards of both Carrie Buck and her daughter, Vivian. Ms. Bucks report cards were indicative of an average student who matriculated every year, while Vivian made the honor roll one year in her short life. Vivian passed from measles at the age of eight.).
[67] Id. at 107, 136-148, 154. (Mr. Whitehead’s extensive conflict of interests are too numerous to discuss in full. Of note, however, is his representation of Dr. Priddy in litigation stemming for his extrajudicial sterilizations during the 1910s, that he received a letter of recommendation for a well-paying job from Mr. Strode just one week before Ms. Buck’s trial, and that he gave a joint presentation with Mr. Strode to the Board of the Colony updating them on the progress of the case during the appellate process.).
[68] Id. at 219.
[69] State of Oklahoma Session Laws of 1935 ch. 26, “Sterilization of Habitual Criminals,” HathiTrust, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3692830&seq=7 (last visited Apr. 27, 2025).
[70] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
[71] Id. at 541.
[72] Id. at 539-542.
[73] Id. at 539.
[74] Id. at 540-542; Id. 546-547 (1942) (Jackson, J., Concurring); See also Lombardo, supra note 4 at 229-231.
[75] Skinner 316 U.S. at 540-542.
[76] Id. at 542; Id. at 546-547 (1942) (Jackson, J., Concurring); See Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).
[77] Poe v. Lynchburg Training Sch. & Hosp., 518 F. Supp. 789 (W.D. Va. 1981).
[78] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 251-254.
[79] Lynchburg Training Sch. & Hosp., 518 F. Supp. at 791-793.
[80] Id. at 791, 793.
[81] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 252-253.
[82] Lynchburg Training Sch. & Hosp., 518 F. Supp. at 791-793.
[83] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 253-254.
[84] Id. at 307-308; See also Nat’l Women’s L. Ctr., Forced Sterilization in the United States 21 (2021).
[85] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 286-287.
[86] Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 11-12.
[87] Id. at 10-11.
[88] Id. at 5; See also Sara Luterman, 31 states have laws that allow forced sterilizations, new report shows, The 19th* (Feb. 4, 2022), https://19thnews.org/2022/02/forced-sterilization-guardianship-reproductive-justice/ [https://perma.cc/JNF2-X8U7].
[89] Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 34-35.
[90] See id. at 20-31; See also Luterman, supra note 88; Harris, supra note 11.
[91] See generally Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 26-31; Luterman, supra note 88; Harris, supra note 11.
[92] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); See also Lombardo, supra note 4 (Of interest, the Virigina statute at question in Loving was passed on the same day as the Virginia Act at issue in Buck.).
[93] See Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); See also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l Inc., 431 U.S. 678 (1977) (Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey in their discussion of the right to contraception emphasize the fundamental nature of the right to reproduce originally described in Skinner.).
[94] See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 479 (1965) (Making the use of contraceptives illegal violates a the fundamental right of marital privacy and the important decisions related to choice to have and rear children); Loving, 388 U.S. at 1 (1967) (anti-miscegenation laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment); Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. 644 (2015) (laws that forbid marriage on the basis of sexual orientation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).
[95] See Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
[96] Id.
[97] Id. at 43-45.
[98] Id. at 45-56.
[99] Id. at 56-62.
[100] Id. at 62-63.
[101] Id. at 63-66.
[102] See Harris, supra note 11; See also Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States , supra note 6; Luterman, supra note 88.
[103] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 206-207 (1927).
[104] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 102.
[105] See generally id.
[106] See id. at 136-148.
[107] Id. at 107.
[108] Id. at 136-148.
[109] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (Chief Justice Taft and Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Sanford, and Stone all joined Justice Holmes three-page majority opinion. Justice Butler was the lone dissenter providing no explanation.).
[110] See generally Poe v. Lynchburg Training Sch. & Hosp., 518 F. Supp. 789 (W.D. Va. 1981); See also Lombardo, supra note 4 at 251-254.
[111] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 251-254; See also Lynchburg Training Sch. & Hosp., 518 F. Supp. at 789.
[112] See generally Lombardo, supra note 4; The Supreme Court Ruling That Led TO 70,000 Forced Sterilizations , supra note 5.
[113] See Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
[114] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).
[115] Id.
[116] Id.
[117] Id.
[118] Poe v. Lynchburg Training Sch. & Hosp., 518 F. Supp. 789, 791-792 (W.D. Va. 1981).
[119] See generally Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 26-31; Luterman, supra note 88; Harris, supra note 11.
[120] See generally Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 26-31; Luterman, supra note 88; Harris, supra note 11.
[121] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 199-203.
[122] Id.
[123] Id. at 236-240 (See these pages for discussion of how Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) was used in the defense at Nuremberg.)
[124] See generally Lombardo, supra note 4 at 307-308; Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 20-25.
[125] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 307-308.
[126] See generally Lombardo, supra note 4 at 287-287; Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States, supra note 6 at 26-31.
[127] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 286-287.
[128] Id. at 267-279.
[129] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 540-542 (1942).
[130] Lombardo, supra note 4 at 267-279.
[131] See generally id.
Cover Photo by Junior Sandoval on Unsplash.
