WHALEN, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH OF NEW YORK v. ROE Et Al.
Docket: A-368
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; November 28, 1975; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
An application for a stay was filed by Robert P. Whalen, Commissioner of Health of New York, against Richard Roe, an infant represented by his parent, following a ruling from a three-judge court in the Southern District of New York. The court had enjoined the enforcement of specific provisions of New York's Public Health Law that required reporting the names and addresses of patients receiving Schedule II controlled substances, which include drugs with a high potential for abuse but accepted medical use. Respondents, including physicians and patients, argued that this mandatory disclosure violated their constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy and the doctor’s ability to prescribe based solely on medical necessity.
During the trial, respondents testified that the requirement discouraged them from using beneficial Schedule II drugs due to privacy concerns. The Commissioner contended that knowing patients' identities was essential for detecting drug abuse, specifically "doctor-shopping." However, it was revealed that the computerized system identified only one case of suspected abuse despite processing over 125,000 prescriptions monthly, leading respondents to argue that the state's interest did not justify the invasion of privacy.
The three-judge court sided with the respondents, referencing previous Supreme Court decisions that recognized the doctor-patient relationship as protected by the constitutional right to privacy. The court emphasized that the nature of medical treatment and patients' concerns about their health also warranted constitutional protection, not limited to issues surrounding childbearing.
The court's conclusion was primarily based on precedents set in Roe and Doe, with additional support drawn from concurring and dissenting opinions in California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, indicating a majority's view towards constitutional protection of personal privacy in intimate affairs. The court recognized respondents’ protected privacy interest regarding their medication and weighed it against the State's need for patient identification, ultimately determining that the state's interest was minimal given the lack of substantial findings over 15 months. Consequently, the court ruled that provisions requiring the disclosure of patients' names and addresses were unconstitutional and prohibited the State from enforcing these provisions, including the acceptance of prescriptions revealing patient identities. The court ordered the destruction of name-bearing prescription forms and the expungement of patient names from records, but stayed this destruction pending appeal, while affirming the unconstitutionality of the provisions. The application for a stay pertains only to the matters that were not stayed by the District Court. A Circuit Justice will grant a stay only under extraordinary circumstances, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a significant likelihood that the lower court's decision was erroneous and that irreparable harm would occur without a stay. Justice Powell emphasized the need for a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would find the issue meritorious and noted the importance of the lower court's refusal to stay its order, suggesting a lack of belief in potential irreparable harm. The excerpt references additional cases that outline these principles governing stay applications.
A stay is denied based on careful consideration of the applicant's motion. The three-judge court had previously granted a limited stay to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant. However, the current applicant has not demonstrated any error by the lower court. Should the applicant prevail on appeal, the denied data can still be obtained from State doctors and pharmacists, who are mandated to keep prescription records for five years. Although the State may experience delays in its computerization efforts, such delays do not constitute irreparable injury. It is concluded that the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm if the stay is denied. This decision does not address the potential for a reversal by the Justices on appeal and does not reflect any judgment on the case's merits. The right to privacy and the respondents' standing align with existing legal precedents. The application for a stay is therefore denied.
