The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not allow a state to intrude on an individual's decisions on matters of procreation which is protected as privacy rights.

c) An adult resident of New York held that the current law hindered his ability to access nonprescription contraceptive devices and information and his freedom to distribute them to his minor children.

The District Court assented with the appellees and declared the law unconstitutional in respect to where it applied to nonprescription contraceptives and ordered it to be rephrased.

[2] The majority concluded that: Part I Appellee Population Planning Associates, Inc. (PPA) has standing to challenge the Education Law in not only its own right, but also on behalf of its potential customers which was settled by Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

Craig held that PPA is among the vendors who have been permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates for the right of third parties who seek access to their market or function.

Also, the argument that limiting exposure to advertisements of contraceptive products may discourage sexual activity has been rejected by the Court as a justification for restrictions on the freedom to choose whether to bear or beget a child.

c) Women are given the right to choose to get an abortion, and the Education Laws were a way of avoiding this practice by not exposing minors to advertisement of contraceptives which promotes promiscuous sex.

e) New York's law that all contraceptive medicines are required to be made by licensed pharmacists did not significantly limit the access to these products if a person has a concrete intention to obtain them.

He commented that if the Framers "could have lived to know that their efforts had enshrined in the Constitution the right of commercial vendors of contraceptives to peddle them to unmarried minors through such means as window displays and vending machines located in the men's room of truck stops, notwithstanding the considered judgment of the New York Legislature to the contrary, it is not difficult to imagine their reaction."

Each case determines whether the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause of Amendment XIV is expanded to encompass a larger range of citizens.

As in Carey v. Population Services International, the appellees used the right of privacy to state that the law was unconstitutional since citizens are entitled to respect for their private lives.

This led to the Court holding criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual conduct in the home violated liberty and privacy interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Amendment XIV.

The Court held that the regulation was a violation of Amendment I because the state interest in ensuring fair and efficient utility rates was not sufficiently linked to the ban.

In the case of the electric company, the public service commission's concern over the equality and efficiency of utility rates did not provide a constitutionally acceptable reason for restricting protected speech.