## Facts

- A package containing about 120 vaginal pessaries (contraceptive diaphragms) was imported from Japan and addressed to Dr. Hannah M. Stone, a licensed New York physician.
- Dr. Stone ordered the devices to evaluate and use them in her gynecological practice, including for patients for whom pregnancy would be medically inadvisable.
- U.S. customs seized the shipment under § 305(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, which barred importation of “any article whatever for the prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion.”
- Dr. Stone’s testimony that the importation was for legitimate medical purposes was not challenged for accuracy or good faith.
- Medical witnesses for both sides agreed that contraceptives could be necessary to protect women’s health in some cases.
- The United States filed an in rem forfeiture action; the district court dismissed the libel and ordered the package released, and the government appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether § 305(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits importation of contraceptive devices when ordered by a licensed physician for good-faith, legitimate medical use.
2. Whether the statute should be construed to contain an implied medical exception to avoid treating medically indicated contraception as contraband.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the decree dismissing the forfeiture action and allowing release of the package to Dr. Stone.
- The court construed § 305(a) not to bar importation of contraceptives shipped to a licensed physician for bona fide medical purposes.
- The court reasoned that reading the statute to forbid all physician use would create an irrational regime that permits medically justified abortions (the statute’s “unlawful abortion” wording implying lawful abortions exist) while banning less drastic, preventive medical measures.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes restricting importation of contraceptives under Comstock-derived language are construed not to reach a physician’s good-faith importation for legitimate medical practice.
- Where statutory text distinguishes “unlawful” abortion, courts may infer Congress did not intend to prohibit medical uses that are lawful and therapeutically indicated.
- Courts avoid interpretations that produce inconsistent or unreasonable results, especially when they would criminalize accepted medical judgment supported by undisputed medical testimony.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that § 305(a) does not authorize forfeiture of contraceptives imported on the order of a licensed physician for bona fide medical purposes, recognizing an implied medical exception that preserves doctors’ ability to use contraception to protect patients’ health.


United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936)