Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 US 479, 14 L ed 2d 510, 85 S Ct 1678 (1965)

The brief below was submitted by the author, in a similar form for Professor Jan Garlitz's Our Living Constitution Course offered by the Washington Center in the spring of 2008.

---

Appellants:

• Estelle T. Griswold
• Buxton

Defendant:

• State of Connecticut

The Court's opinion was given by Justice William O. Douglas

Facts of the Case

Appellant Griswold was the Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) and appellant Buxton was the Medical Director for PPLC when the appellants were arrested. The PPLC and the appellants as representatives of the organization gave information, instruction and medical advice on preventing conception to married couples. The appellants were arrested on the charges of violating sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (GSC), found guilty, and fined $100 in accordance with the law. The appellants appeal section 54-196 of the GSC violated the Fourteenth Amendment was denied.

Issues Involved

The issues involved in this case include, but are not limited to:

1. Do specific rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, create zones of privacy, which allow for the execution of those rights?
2. Do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide married couples with the privacy to be secure in their relational decisions?

Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of both the Sixth Circuit Court and the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court.

Holding and Rationale of the Court

Specific rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, create zones of privacy, which allow for the execution of those specific rights. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments provide married couples with the privacy to be secure in their relational decisions.

The rationale of the Court was:

1. The Framers of the Constitution did not intend the Bill of Rights to cover all rights bestowed upon citizens of the United States.
2. The Bill of Rights creates realms of privacy, which allow citizens to freely engage in those rights.
3. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments create a realm of privacy for married couples to feel secure in their decisions.
4. The Court has in the past upheld married couples’ rights to privacy in deciding personal matters such as, the decision of how to educate their children and other private matters of the home.
5. The Connecticut statutes in question unnecessarily invade the realm of privacy of married couples afforded them by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
6. The unnecessary invasion of privacy runs counter to the intentions of the Constitution and is therefore, unconstitutional.

Additional Opinions

Concurring Opinions

Justice Goldberg concurred with Court’s opinion, but believed the Fourteenth Amendment provided for the liberty of personal rights, which are not specified in the Bill of Rights.

Justice Harlan also concurred with the Court’s opinion, but stated the “statute violated basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

In addition, Justice White concurred stating that the statute deprived married couples of rights without due process of law, with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dissenting Opinions

Justices Black and Stewart dissented on the claims that the statute violated no constitutional principle, with Justice Black stressing there was “no constitutional right of privacy”.

Additional Links

The American Eugenics Movement

Eugenics and the Supreme Court

Case Summary from OYEZ