Skinner v. Oklahoma
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 535 (1942)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
An Oklahoma statute, the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, allowed the forced sterilization of any “habitual criminal” within the state. The statute defined a “habitual criminal” as a person who, having been convicted two or more times for crimes “amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude” either in Oklahoma court or in a court of any other state, was thereafter convicted of such a felony in Oklahoma and sentenced to prison within Oklahoma. Skinner (defendant) was convicted in 1926 of stealing chickens and sentenced to prison in Oklahoma. In 1929, Skinner was convicted of robbery with firearms and sentenced to prison. In 1934, he was convicted again of robbery with firearms and again incarcerated in Oklahoma. He was confined there in 1935 when the sterilization act was passed, and in 1936, the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma (plaintiff) instituted proceedings against him. Skinner challenged the act as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. At his jury trial in Oklahoma state court, the court instructed the jury to consider only whether a vasectomy would be detrimental to Skinner’s health. The jury answered in the negative. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a judgment directing that a vasectomy be performed on Skinner. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)
Concurrence (Stone, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
