Justice Holmes, Buck V. Bell, and the History of Equal Protection

38 Pages Posted: 14 Oct 2006

See all articles by Stephen A. Siegel

Stephen A. Siegel

DePaul University - College of Law


Although most everything Justice Holmes said in upholding eugenic sterilization in Buck v. Bell has been extensively criticized, his impatient response to Carrie Buck's equal protection claim, dismissing it as "the usual last resort of constitutional argument", is still believed to be an accurate depiction of the Equal Protection Clause's place in constitutional analysis before the Supreme Court systematically began attacking racial discrimination in the 1950s.

This article disputes this understanding of the history of equal protection. It analyzes the course of compulsory sterilization litigation before Buck v. Bell to show that equal protection had proven to be the strongest constitutional claim for defendants seeking to prevent their involuntary sterilization. Then it extends the discussion by surveying the many instances in early twentieth century law, both before and after Buck v. Bell, in which the Supreme Court struck down legislation on Equal Protection Clause grounds. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of his revisionist history of the Equal Protection Clause for an understanding of constitutional norms in the Lochner--era.

Keywords: Holmes, Equal Protection, Buck v. Bell, Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Sterilization, Lochner Era, Eugenics, Class Legislation

Suggested Citation

Siegel, Stephen A., Justice Holmes, Buck V. Bell, and the History of Equal Protection. Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 90, p. 106, 2005, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=936698

Stephen A. Siegel (Contact Author)

DePaul University - College of Law ( email )

25 East Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-2287
United States
312-362-8144 (Phone)
312-362-5448 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics