Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives. 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. Background The appellants were New York state officials whose job was to enforce the revisions of the Education Law, including then-governor Hugh Carey. The Education Law stated that it was a crime: a) for any person to sell or distribute any contraceptive of any kind to a minor under the age of 16 years b) for anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute contraceptives to persons 16 or over c) for anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives The main appellee was Population Services International, a nonprofit corporation that spread birth control knowledge and services. Population Services International owned the North Carolina corporation Population Planning Associates, Inc. This corporation sold and advertised contraceptives to New York primarily through mail-order retail sale of nonmedical contraceptive devices from their offices in North Carolina which was a violation of the enforced Education Laws in New York at the time. Other appellees were: a) Rev. James B. Hagen who was a minister and director of a venereal disease prevention program that gave out nonprescription contraceptive devices. b) Physicians who specialized in family planning, pediatrics, and obstetrics-gynecology. 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 appellees challenged the constitutionality of NY CLS Educ § 6811. 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. Holding The Supreme Court held that the advertising restrictions violated the First Amendment. The Court further held that : a) the prohibitions on the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives violated the due process