The Supreme Court’s decision in the Buck v. Bell case was shaped by a set of social values and assumptions which were widely accepted among political leaders, reformers, and legal thinkers in the time of the early twentieth century. In retrospect, modern readers may view the ruling as deeply unethical and dehumanizing, but the majority of the justices believed they were acting in the best interests of social progress, public welfare, and within scientific governance. Understanding their decision requires understanding the intellectual climate of the 1920s, and not simply assuming the justices were ignorant or thinking irrationally.
One of the key factors influencing the Court’s decision was the certainty in eugenics as a legitimate science. Since the time of Darwin, many educated people believed that traits such as intelligence, poverty, criminality, and so-called “feeble-mindedness” were biologically inherited through generations. Influential scientists, doctors, and social reformers of the day argued that humanity could be improved by preventing people considered to be socially “unfit” from reproducing, a mentality known as social Darwinism pioneered by Francis Galton in the late 1800s. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., author of the majority opinion, said to be scholarly and well-read in scientific literature, accepted these assumptions as credible. The report makes repeated mention of hereditary imbecility and counts Carrie Buck, her mother, and her child, as representing, in Holmes’s own words, “three generations of imbeciles” (Buck v. Bell, 1927). Inasmuch, the Court considered Buck’s sterilization not as punishment, but rather as a medically and scientifically justified social policy designed to protect the society at large and its progeny. The majority opinion would emphasize that the series of hearings and appeals, institutional review boards, and medical procedure all contained “careful provisions” and followed due process of the law. This evidences the belief that trained professionals and state institutions could rationally manage society for the common good of all, and show the Court’s trust in doctors and administrators of these institutions to identify these type problems and correctly implement scientifically backed solutions. It is also telling of population anxieties about the denigration of social order. During the early 20th Century, many Americans feared a weakening of national strength through continued reproduction of “unfit” persons. Immigration, rising crime and poverty in urban areas, and changing social norms are likely contributing factors to these fears of civilization being in a biological decline. So perhaps it is with this mindset that people found hope in eugenics for offering what seemed a modern method for preserving social stability.
The decision to proceed with the operation on Buck shows a prioritization of the overall collective welfare over individual autonomy. Holmes explicitly argued that the state could demand sacrifices of its people for the benefit of society, comparing sterilization to mandatory military service, and citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case in which the Court upheld state’s rights to enforce mandatory vaccination laws. This reasoning suggested bodily rights could be overridden when the welfare of the public was at stake, thus justifying limiting a person’s reproductive rights. Certain economic concerns are also stressed, with Holmes referring to people who “sap the strength of the State”, and could be reflective of fears that public institutions were overwhelmed by dependent populations requiring governmental support. It is likely many considered the financial burden imposed by prisons, asylums, and other welfare institutions, and believed sterilization as a cost-effective measure to limit these populaces. Relatedly, this mentality may be indicative of a disparity in social classes. Although the Court described the process as fair, Buck was poor, institutionalized, and female; socially powerless. Historians would later show that much of the evidence against her was highly suspect; the justices seemingly accepting institutional authority without serious skepticism. This shows the broader class- and gender-biases of the time, whereby marginalized people were often viewed as problems requiring oversight rather than individuals possessing full autonomy and dignity.
The priorities motivating the court majority can therefore be summarized as: the belief that scientifically backed eugenics, trust in administrative expertise, the fear of social denigration, and deference to public welfare over individual rights. These prevailing values were likely to make compulsory sterilization appear as a rational and humane policy, rather than a violation of human rights. While today these assumptions are widely rejected, as advances in genetics has disproved many eugenic assertions and modern ethical thinking places a far greater emphasis on personal autonomy and informed consent, in 1927, the majority believed they were applying science responsibly to solve pressing social issues of the day. This historical context can help explain how most of the Supreme Court justices upheld a decision which would today be regarded as profoundly unjust.
Sources
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)