Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14, Appellate Jurisdiction, Federalism, Substantive Due Process
Case Facts:
In 1873, the 43rd Congress passed the Connecticut Comstock Act which effectively barred any person from using “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception” as well as prohibiting anyone aiding or abetting contraceptive use. As a result, medical information and prescription rendered by physicians pertaining to contraceptives was non-existent, as doctors feared liability under the act. Early forms of Planned Parenthood clinics, namely the Waterbury Clinic, provided women with information on contraception, but were compelled to abide by the Act. After several unsuccessful lawsuits to challenge the Act, in 1961 a Yale Gynecologist C. Lee Buxton challenged the Act in Poe v. Ullman. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiffs in the case had not been charged or arrested. Famously, Justice J.M. Harlan II dissented in Poe, stating the court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. As a result, Buxton set up a contraception clinic with Estell Griswold in Connecticut in blatant violation of the Act. They were promptly arrested and fined. They went on to challenge the Act again, where their convictions were upheld by both the circuit court where their appeal was heard, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Act violated their constitutional rights to privacy.
Questions:
1. Does the Constitution protect marital privacy from state efforts to bar them from using contraceptives?
Holding:
1. Yes
Legal Reasoning: Justice W.O. Douglas (7-2)
1. Rather than relying on substantive due process to explain why the 14th Amendment guarantees marital rights to privacy, this right to privacy is implied throughout the Bill of Rights in Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5
2. In previous cases Meyer v. Nebraska, NAACP v. Alabama, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and more, the court found numerous instances of constitutionally protected civil liberties which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution
3. The marital right to privacy is similar to these previously established civil liberties and should be protected as such
4. The Connecticut Comstock Act is stuck down
Concurrence: Justice A. Goldberg
1. The 9th Amendment alone is sufficient in establishing and protecting the marital right to privacy because the Amendment plainly asserts that rights beyond what are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are constitutionally protected
Concurrence: Justice B. White
1. The Connecticut Comstock Act fails the rational basis test as the state’s ban on contraceptives does not reinforce the state’s interest in curtailing immoral sexual relationships
Dissent: H.L. Black
1. The Constitution does not explicitly enumerate the right to privacy. Therefore, it is impossible to see this right as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. The court has no grounds to strike down the Act
Significance:
Griswold was a landmark decision for legalizing the use of contraception for married women. Its implicitly strong precedent was eventually used to further extend contraceptive use to single women and teens, but also to legalize gay marriage and abortion. Additionally, Douglas suggests a powerful argument: The idea that specifically enumerated rights create an emanation, where penumbras, also conceptualized as zones, are created and encapsulate other implied rights which are not specifically enumerated, such as the marital right to privacy. This is a foundational argument concerned with substantive due process
Reflection:
Even though the court did intend to rely on substantive due process to incorporate the 5th and 14th Amendments, the core argument in Griswold is steeped in it. Substantive due process essentially says that there are some rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are so fundamental, the court must hold a stricter standard of scrutiny to any governmental attempt to infringe on them. Further, modern Justice Clarence Thomas has advocated for the complete revision of all cases decided upon substantive due process in Dobbs v. Jackson, as the basis of these decisions is “demonstrably erroneous…” Overall, Griswold broadened the power of the federal government
Supreme Court Case Briefs 