Griswold v. Connecticut
| Griswold v. Connecticut | |
|---|---|
|
|
| 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 (more)
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 | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg |
| Concurrence | Goldberg, joined by Warren, Brennan |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Concurrence | White |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Black |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, III, IV, V, IX, XIV; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-32, 54–196 (rev. 1958) | |
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution, through the Bill of Rights, implies a fundamental right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut "" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
...
Wikipedia