United States v. Vuitch

402 U.S. 62 (1971) · Docket No. 84 (1970 term)

Full caption: United States v. Milan Vuitch

Historical predecessor

Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Argued
January 12, 1971
Decided
April 21, 1971
Majority author
Black, J.
Joined by
Burger, C.J.; Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, JJ. (varied by issue)
Vote
Mixed (5-4 on jurisdiction; different alignment on merits)

Question presented

Whether D.C.'s abortion statute (permitting abortion only when 'necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health') is unconstitutionally vague.

Holding

The D.C. statute is not unconstitutionally vague. 'Health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being. The prosecution bears the burden of proving abortion was not medically necessary.

Key reasoning

Justice Black narrowly interpreted 'health' expansively and shifted the burden to prosecution. Justice Douglas's dissent was the first Supreme Court articulation of a general privacy-based abortion right.

§ 1 Reasoning

Justice Black narrowly interpreted 'health' expansively and shifted the burden to prosecution. Justice Douglas's dissent was the first Supreme Court articulation of a general privacy-based abortion right.

§ 2 Opinions

Majority

Black, J.

Burger, C.J.; Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, JJ. (varied by issue)

The D.C. statute is not unconstitutionally vague. 'Health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being. The prosecution bears the burden of proving abortion was not medically necessary.

Concurrence

Harlan, J.

Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ.

Dissented on jurisdiction but joined merits.

Dissent

Douglas, J.

Not joined by any other justice

First Justice to suggest a general right to abortion as part of privacy.

Dissent

Stewart, J.

Not joined by any other justice

Joined Brennan and Marshall in dissent.

“In our view, the term 'health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” Black, J. (majority) · 402 U.S. at 72

§ 3 Practical effect

First abortion case at the Supreme Court. Cited as precedent in Roe two years later. Effectively decriminalized much of D.C. abortion practice.

§ 4 Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

Abolitionist framing

Rarely cited by abolitionists but historically notable as the first abortion case at the Court.

Mainstream pro-life framing

Historically important as the origin of the 'psychological health' broadening that Doe v. Bolton later formalized.

Pro-choice framing

Early precedent for broad 'health' interpretation.

§ 5 Significance

3/ 10

First abortion case at the Court; foreshadowed Roe's broad 'health' construction.

Legal precedential weight4
Practical impact on access3
Movement relevance (abolitionist)2
Enduring relevance, 20262

§ 6 Sources

Editorial note Norman Dorsen (ACLU General Counsel) argued for Vuitch. The day after Vuitch was announced, the Court voted to hear Roe and Doe.