| Griswold v. Connecticut | | Supreme Court of the United States | Argued March 29, 1965
Decided June 7, 1965
| | | Full case name: | Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton v. Connecticut | | | | Citations: | 381 U.S. 479; 85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282 | | | | Prior history: | Defendants convicted, Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit, 1-2-62; affirmed, Circuit Court, Appellate Division, 1-7-63; affirmed, 200 A.2d 479 (Conn. 1964) | | | | Subsequent history: | None | | | Holding | | A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed. | | Court membership | Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Arthur Joseph Goldberg | | Case opinions | Majority by: Douglas
Joined by: Warren, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg
Concurrence by: Goldberg
Joined by: Warren, Brennan
Concurrence by: Harlan
Concurrence by: White
Dissent by: Black
Joined by: Stewart
Dissent by: Stewart
Joined by: Black
| | Laws applied | | U.S. Const. amends. IX, XIV; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-32, 54-196 (rev. 1958) | Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy". Image File history File links Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court. ...
Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest judicial body in the...
The Atlantic Reporter is a regional case law reporter published by West Publishing in the United States. ...
The Connecticut Supreme Court is in most respects a typical American state supreme court. ...
Template:Politician Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney of Alameda County, the 20th Attorney General of California, the 30th Governor of California, and the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (from 1953 to 1969). ...
Hugo Black Hugo LaFayette Black (February 27, 1886 – September 25, 1971) was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1937 - 1971). ...
William Orville Douglas (October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980) was a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice. ...
Tom Campbell Clark (September 23, 1899 in Dallas, Texas –June 13, 1977) was United States Attorney General from 1945-1949 and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1949-1967). ...
John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...
William J. Brennan, official portrait, 1976. ...
Potter Stewart (January 23, 1915 – December 7, 1985) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...
Byron Raymond White (June 8, 1916 – April 15, 2002) won fame both as a football running back and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ...
Arthur Goldberg Arthur Joseph Goldberg (August 8, 1908 – January 19, 1990) was an American statesman and jurist who served as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Supreme Court Justice, and Ambassador to the United Nations. ...
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. ...
Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. ...
// The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court...
1965 (MCMLXV) was a common year starting on Friday (the link is to a full 1965 calendar). ...
A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular issue. ...
Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest judicial body in the...
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves. ...
It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles. ...
Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court overturned Griswold's conviction and invalidated the Connecticut law. The majority opinion, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justices Tom C. Clark, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Arthur J. Goldberg, famously argued that the Buill of Rights protected a "right of privacy" contained in the penumbras of the first eight amendments to the Bill of Rights, as well as the Ninth Amendment: The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance (citation omitted). Various guarantees create zones of privacy...The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Court limited its analysis to married couples.
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. Image of the United States Bill of Rights from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. ...
William Orville Douglas (October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980) was a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice. ...
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Umbra. ...
Arthur Goldberg Arthur Joseph Goldberg (August 8, 1908 – January 19, 1990) was an American statesman and jurist who served as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Supreme Court Justice and Ambassador to the United Nations. ...
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. ...
John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...
In United States law, adopted from British law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a persons legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life...
Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. ...
Byron Raymond White (June 8, 1916 – April 15, 2002) won fame both as a football running back and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ...
Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional. Hugo Black Hugo LaFayette Black (February 27, 1886 – September 25, 1971) was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1937 - 1971). ...
Potter Stewart (January 23, 1915 – December 7, 1985) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...
Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings protecting access to sexual healthcare, most notably, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The Supreme Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. For the most part, the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism". Holding Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. ...
1973 (MCMLXXIII) was a common year starting on Monday. ...
In United States law, adopted from British law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a persons legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life...
Judicial activism is the tendency of some judges to take a flexible view of their power of judicial interpretation, especially when such judges import subjective reasoning that displaces objective evaluation of applicable law. ...
Prior history Before Griswold, a Connecticut law made the use of contraceptives a crime. This law was enforced upon everyone, including married couples. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and violated the "right of privacy" implicitly stated in the Constitution. Today, women are entitled to the right of contraceptive use, and as a result, society no longer frowns upon the use of birth control.
The standing law at the time in Connecticut made the provision of medical guidance for married couples on their decisions concerning the prevention of conception a criminal action on the part of professionals. Connecticut made it illegal to prescribe birth control. They built this on the idea that married couples are obligated to one another and birth control gives the option for extramarital affairs of either partner without the worry of repercussions of out of wedlock pregnancies[3]. The Court believed that although the state could do much to discourage adultery, they may not forbid individuals to take precautions to minimize the risks of pregnancy as they see appropriate[4]. The statute was rarely implemented and prohibited the use of contraceptives or the opening of public clinics, thus depriving women who could not afford private physicians the proper care they deserve. At a previous point in time all the birth control clinics in Connecticut shut down for over twenty years due to the enforcement and passing of the anti-contraceptive law that made no medical exceptions to contraceptive attainment[5]. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut marked a significant step in the battle for protection of privacy.
In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a doctor challenged the statute on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain situations, threaten the lives and well-being of his patients. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of his patients. A second challenge to the Connecticut law was brought by a doctor as well as his patients in Poe v. Ullman (1961). However, the Supreme Court again voted to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds that the case was not ripe. It held that, because the plaintiffs had not been charged or threatened with prosecution, there was no actual controversy for the judiciary to resolve. Thus, the Connecticut statute had evaded judicial review until Griswold v. Connecticut.
In Poe, Justice John Marshall Harlan II filed one of the most cited dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history. He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. He famously wrote, "the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. it is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints." On the basis of this interpretation of the due process clause, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution.
Shortly after the Poe decision was handed down, Estelle Griswold (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Buxton (a physician and professor at the Yale School of Medicine) opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in order to test the contraception law once again. Shortly after the clinic was opened, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each. The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. Griswold then appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Image File history File links No higher resolution available. ...
Image File history File links No higher resolution available. ...
Social Change The freedom to lawfully take contraceptives motivated more couples to use them. This allowed establishments such as Planned Parenthood (where Griswold worked) to offer their medical services without fear of prosecution. Consequently, the number of women using birth control and the amount of business that healthcare professionals received increased. Since women now had the option of contraceptives, they could engage in sex with a descreased anxiety of pregnancy.
After Griswold had been decided, women had now obtained two fundamental rights that gave them the necessary means to break through stereotypes and begin to exercise more control over their lives. During the 60s and 70s, the feminist movement gained more power. Up until then, women had limited rights. Many did not have jobs, but stayed home to raise children and be stereotypical "housewives". But post-World War II, women began to overcome the "separate spheres" as more and more entered the workforce. They had control over their own sexual health: an important vistory since women ended up depending on the father of their child for financial support, married or not. Without a child to concentrate on, a career could be pursued. With more time to focus on a career, women could support themselves and become financially independent. women began to earn more pay, obtain better jobs, and distinguish themselves from, but at the same time, classify themselves along with the opposite gender. Lastly, they experienced sexual liberation. with decisions like Griswold and Roe on their side, they could combat the "sexual double standard", engage sexually, and not be ashamed or worried of certain consequences.
Subsequent jurisprudence Over 95 percent of the women in our society, whether married or not, use contraceptives today and the 1965 rulings of Griswold v. Connecticut made this possible. Today's society is accepting of the use of contraceptives, privacy, and the choices of social reproduction we are now granted. The Court's decision laid the groundwork that reinforced and illustrated one's right to privacy and overall created the path for our society's acceptance and the use of contraceptives.
Later decisions by the court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts. Until Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the sale of contraceptives did not include unmarried couples. The "right of privacy" that was established in Griswold only applied to marital relationships. The argument for Eisenstadt was built on the "right of privacy", and the constitutionality of it only pertaining to married couples. The claim against the Massachusetts law was that 1) unmarried couples should also be able to use contraception and engage in potentially procreative sexual intercourse, and 2) denying unmarried couples the "right of privacy" violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts couldn't enforce the law onto married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples, as well. The Court struck down the law, extending contraceptive rights and the "right of privacy" to unmarried couples. Eisenstadt v. ...
The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in support of the Court's result in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The decision in Roe struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion. The Court recognized this law as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law was struck down, legalizing abortion for any woman for any reason she chooses, up until the fetus reaches a point in development in which is can survive outside of the womb. The "right of privacy" now established in Griswold and Eisenstadt was extended in Roe to cover abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a state sodomy law by upholding a broadly defined right to private, consensual, intimate adult contact. The Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) with the claim that intimate, consensual, adult sexual contact was prt of the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. A large part of the argument was that legalizing sodomy was condemning homosexuality. The Justices saw this was not the case, but that adults are all entitled to participate in consensual, intimate, sexual conduct, regardless of sexual preference. Lawrence never explicitly referred to previous cases using the terminlogy "right of privacy" as a specific argument, but did compare itself to the line of reasoning in the Griswold cases in that matters within individual relationships are entitled to privacy.
See also Wikisource has original text related to this article: Griswold v. Connecticut Helscher, David. (1994). Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy. Northern Illinois university Law Review, 1-7. (1). There have been a number of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court or by the courts of the various states regarding pornography, sexual activity and what consenting adults are allowed to do in the privacy of their homes (or sometimes, in other places). ...
Image File history File links Wikisource-logo. ...
The original Wikisource logo. ...
Kalman, Laura. (1994). The Promise and Peril of Privacy. Reviews in American History, 22, 725-731.
Lockhart, Andrea. (1997). PART ONE: FAMILY, THE CONSTITUTION, AND FEDERALISM: Griswold v. Connecticut: A Case Brief. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 1-3. (1).
Loewy, Arnold H. (2003). Morals Legislation and the Establishment Clause. Alabama Law Review, 55.
External links - ^ Findlaw Full Text of Case
|
Feeds |
Contact