Griswold v. Connecticut

• Federalism
• Terms and definitions
• Laws
• Court cases
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• State survey of the federal grant review process
  • State responses to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
  • State responses by question to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
• Federalism by the numbers
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
  • Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• Index of articles

Griswold v. Connecticut
Reference: 381 US 479
Term: 1965
Important Dates
Argued: March 29-30, 1965 Decided: June 7, 1965
Outcome
Connecticut Supreme Court reversed
Majority
Earl Warren • William Douglas • William Brennan • Arthur Goldberg • Byron White • Tom Clark • John Harlan
Dissenting
Hugo Black • Potter Stewart

Griswold v. Connecticut was a case decided on Jun 7, 1965, by the United States Supreme Court holding that a right to marital privacy can be implied from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the Due Process Clause outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The case concerned a Connecticut statute that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instruments in contraception. In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court found the 1879 Connecticut law violated citizens' right to privacy. The court reversed the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that barred the use of any drug, medical device, or other instruments in contraception. C. Lee Buxton and Estelle Griswold opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. Both were arrested and convicted of violating the law by using the clinic to further contraception efforts.

The issue: Did the Connecticut statute infringe on citizens’ right to privacy?

The outcome: The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court and held that the Connecticut statute violated citizens' right to privacy.

Why it matters: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in this case established the right to marital privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the Fourteenth Amendment, and incorporated the right to privacy against the states. To read more about the impact of Griswold v. Connecticut, click here.

Background

See also: Fourteenth Amendment, Bill of Rights

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or instrument in furthering contraception. C. Lee Buxton, a gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven with Estelle Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. Buxton and Griswold had planned to use the clinic as a means to challenge the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing states cannot violate citizens' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Both were arrested and convicted of violating the 1879 law by using the clinic to further contraception efforts. Their conviction was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Oral argument

Oral arguments were held between March 29-30, 1965. The case was decided on June 7, 1965.

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 7-2 to reverse the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justice Tom Clark. Justice Arthur Goldberg, joined by Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan, wrote a concurring opinion. Justices John Harlan and Byron White also wrote their own concurring opinions. Justices Potter Stewart and Hugo Black filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinions

Opinion of the court

Justice William Douglas, writing for the court, argued rights implied in multiple articles in the Bill of Rights created zones of privacy, which cannot be intruded upon by the states per the Due Process Clause outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment:

“	The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."	”
—William Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut

Concurring opinions

Justice Arthur Goldberg, joined by Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan wrote a concurring opinion, finding that the right to marital privacy was located in the Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment:

“	I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment.	”
—Arthur Goldberg, concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut

Justice John Harlan wrote a concurring opinion, finding that the Connecticut statute infringes on the basic values of ordered liberty outlined in Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“	In my view, the proper constitutional inquiry in this case is whether this Connecticut statute infringes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the enactment violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 325. For reasons stated at length in my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra, I believe that it does. While the relevant inquiry may be aided by resort to one or more of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, it is not dependent on them or any of their radiations. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom.	”
—John Harlan, concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut

Justice Byron White wrote a concurring opinion, also finding that the Connecticut law violates the Due Process Clause and deprives married couples of liberty:

“	In my view, this Connecticut law, as applied to married couples, deprives them of "liberty" without due process of law, as that concept is used in the Fourteenth Amendment. I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court reversing these convictions under Connecticut's aiding and abetting statute.	”
—Byron White, concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut

Dissenting opinion

Justice Hugo Black, joined by Justice Potter Stewart, wrote a dissenting opinion, finding that there was no way to infer that the First Amendment protected a couple's right to receive information on the use of contraceptives:

“	The two defendants here were active participants in an organization which gave physical examinations to women, advised them what kind of contraceptive devices or medicines would most likely be satisfactory for them, and then supplied the devices themselves, all for a graduated scale of fees, based on the family income. Thus, these defendants admittedly engaged with others in a planned course of conduct to help people violate the Connecticut law. Merely because some speech was used in carrying on that conduct -- just as, in ordinary life, some speech accompanies most kinds of conduct -- we are not, in my view, justified in holding that the First Amendment forbids the State to punish their conduct. Strongly as I desire to protect all First Amendment freedoms, I am unable to stretch the Amendment so as to afford protection to the conduct of these defendants in violating the Connecticut law.	”
—Hugo Black, dissenting opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut

Impact

Griswold v. Connecticut established the precedent that a right to privacy can be inferred from the Due Process Clause outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore prohibiting states from restricting couples' right to be informed about the use of contraception. Justice John Harlan's opinion has been frequently cited in other cases regarding the right to privacy. These cases include Eisenstadt v Baird, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas, in which the justices found the right to privacy to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

See also

• The Warren Court
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court
• Federalism
• Amendment XIV, United States Constitution
• Bill of Rights, United States Constitution
• Right to Privacy

External links

• Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Search Google News for this topic