Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965)
Rule of Law:
A state law forbidding the use of contraceptives by married persons violates the constitutional right of marital privacy, which is found in the penumbras of specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
Facts:
- Estelle Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut.
- C. Lee Buxton was a licensed physician and professor at Yale Medical School, serving as the Medical Director for the League's New Haven center.
- From November 1 to November 10, 1961, the center operated and provided information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons concerning contraception.
- Dr. Buxton would examine the wife and prescribe the most suitable contraceptive device or material for her use.
- These services were provided for a fee, although some couples were served for free.
- Griswold and Buxton were arrested and charged with violating a Connecticut statute that criminalized the use of contraceptives and a separate statute that criminalized aiding and abetting an offense.
Procedural Posture:
- Griswold and Buxton were arrested and charged in Connecticut as accessories for providing contraceptive advice to married persons, in violation of state law.
- They were convicted in the Circuit Court of Connecticut and fined $100 each.
- The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed their convictions.
- Griswold and Buxton, as appellants, appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court then noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Connecticut statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives and the provision of medical advice about their use to married persons violate the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes, the Connecticut statute violates the U.S. Constitution. The specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance, thereby creating zones of privacy. The right of association (First Amendment), the prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home (Third Amendment), the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), and the Self-Incrimination Clause (Fifth Amendment) all create a zone of privacy that the government cannot invade. The marital relationship lies within this zone, and a law forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, has a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. To allow police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for signs of contraceptive use is repulsive to the very idea of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
Concurring - Justice Goldberg
Yes. While agreeing with the Court, this opinion emphasizes the relevance of the Ninth Amendment, which states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This amendment reveals the Framers' belief that fundamental rights exist beyond those explicitly listed in the first eight amendments. The right of marital privacy is such a fundamental right, rooted in the 'traditions and collective conscience of our people.' To deny constitutional protection to this right simply because it is not mentioned in explicit terms would be to ignore the Ninth Amendment entirely.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes. This opinion concurs in the judgment but disagrees with the majority's 'penumbra' reasoning. The proper constitutional inquiry is whether the Connecticut statute infringes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it violates basic values 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' The Due Process Clause stands on its own bottom and does not depend on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. As argued in his dissent in Poe v. Ullman, the statute's intrusion into the privacy of the marital relationship is a violation of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. The Connecticut law deprives married couples of 'liberty' without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to marry and raise a family is a fundamental liberty that the state cannot enter without substantial justification. A statute regulating such a sensitive area requires 'strict scrutiny.' The state's sole justification—that banning contraception for married couples discourages illicit sexual relationships—is fanciful and lacks a rational connection to the law's broad sweep. The statute is not necessary to achieve the state's goal and unjustifiably sweeps into the protected freedoms of married persons.
Dissenting - Justice Black
No, the Connecticut statute does not violate the U.S. Constitution. While the law is personally offensive, it is not unconstitutional. The Court's opinion relies on a constitutional 'right of privacy' that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The majority is improperly substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature by using abstract concepts like 'privacy' to strike down laws it finds unwise, which is reminiscent of the discredited substantive due process era of Lochner v. New York. The Ninth Amendment was intended to limit the power of the federal government, not to serve as a source of federal judicial power to invalidate state laws.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No. Although this is an 'uncommonly silly law,' it does not violate the Constitution. There is no general right of privacy found in the Bill of Rights or any other part of the Constitution. The Court's opinion does not even state which specific amendment is infringed by the law. To invalidate a law based on an unenumerated right like privacy is to turn somersaults with history, particularly with respect to the Ninth Amendment, which was intended as a limitation on federal, not state, power. The proper way to repeal a bad law is through the democratic process, not judicial invention.
Analysis:
Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark decision that established a constitutional 'right to privacy' even though this right is not explicitly mentioned in the text. The majority's 'penumbras and emanations' theory created a new, albeit controversial, framework for identifying unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution. This case was foundational for later privacy jurisprudence, most notably in extending the right to privacy to a woman's decision to have an abortion in Roe v. Wade. The decision marked a significant expansion of the concept of liberty under the Due Process Clause into the realm of personal and familial decisions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"