格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州

Marriage is an intimate bond between two people. Decisions about when to start a family, how many kids to have, and how they will be raised are considered private. However, before 1965, some state legislatures became an invisible third person in marriages by prohibiting couples from using birth control as a method for family planning.

In this article, we take a look at the case summary of格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州,theSupreme Court's ruling, and how the right to privacy and protections of the Constitution were defined. We will also discuss the impact格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州had on future cases involving sexual andreproductive rights.

Summary of Griswold v. Connecticut

On November 1, 1961, C. Lee Buxton, a Yale School of Medicine gynecologist, and Estelle Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. The pair counseled married couples on family planning which included the prescription and use of birth control. Nine days later the two were arrested in violation of a Connecticut statute that prohibits the use of contraceptives.

Buxton and Griswold were convicted and fined $100. The pair appealed to theSupreme Courtof Errors of Connecticut, which upheld the lower court's ruling. They then appealed to theSupreme Courtto challenge the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. TheSupreme Courtreviewed the case in 1965.

Fig. 1 - Contraceptive methods. Buxton and Griswold counseled married couples on the use of contraceptives for family planning.

Supreme Court's Decision

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court found Connecticut's anti-contraception statute unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Constitution did protect the right of marital privacy against restrictions on contraception passed by state legislatures.

Reasoning

上诉人声称十四修正案was violated but the Supreme Court found provisions in the Constitution that better supported their argument. As the Court stated before, the Due Process Clause applies to liberties that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience" of the American people that they are considered fundamental rights.¹法官没有convin谁写的意见ced that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporated the rights from constitutional amendments 1-8.

However, the Court agreed that the idea of liberty protects personal rights not written in the Bill of Rights. The Court explained that while the right to privacy is not explicitly protected in the Constitution numerous guarantees in the Bill of Rights establish it as a right. The Supreme Court argued that the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments create penumbras that apply to marital privacy.

Notable Concurrence and Dissents

Concurrence: Justice Goldberg concurred, however, he noted that the Ninth Amendment provided the justification for the protection of rights not directly expressed in the Constitution. Justice Harlan agreed with the appellants, Buxton and Griswold, and stated that due process described in the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right to privacy.

Dissents: Justices Black and Stewart did not find that the Constitution created a right to privacy in the circumstances put forth by the case.

Right to Privacy

TheSupreme Court's ruling in格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州famously concluded that a right to privacy existed within the US Constitution despite it not being explicitly written in the document.

The fact that the Constitution didn't have a provision forbidding the government from intruding on the dynamics of traditional family relationships, didn't mean that the government was meant to have the power to do so. The right to privacy in marital relationships, theSupreme Courtsaid, was older than the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

The next section takes a look at the protections of the US Constitution that theSupreme Courtviewed as essential to creating the right to privacy.

Protections of the Constitution

In a previous decision,West Coast Hotel v. Parrish(1937), theSupreme Courtrejected the idea that the Constitution protected rights not explicitly written in the Consitution, also called "substantive rights." However, in格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州,Court ruled that substantive rights did exist in areas separate from the economy and commerce. Therefore, while the right to contract (West Coast Hotel v. Parrish) wasn't protected by the Constitution, the right to privacy argued for in格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州did exist.

As mentioned above, the Supreme Court stated that specific provisions of the US Constitution alluded to a right to privacy entitled to individuals. The Court specifically noted the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

TheFirst Amendmenthas been interpreted to include the right to associate with people, the right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of children, and the right to study any subject or foreign language.

The Third and Fourth Amendments are intended to protect an individual's rights to the use and ownership of their property without interference from the government. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment protects an individual from having their personal belonging searched through or taken; the Fifth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment run into each other when you take into account Justice Douglas' quote above.

Lastly, the Ninth Amendment encompasses all other personal rights deemed fundamental from being limited by the government, like the right to travel and the right to keep personal matters private.

Impact of Griswold v. Connecticut

In格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州,Supreme Courtruled that married people had the right to privacy in their marriage which includes the couple's decision to use contraception. Decided in 1965, the case marked the beginning of the change in sexual andreproductive rightsin the US.

Since 1965, more than 20 cases regarding matters of reproductive health have been heard by theSupreme Court,most well-known beingRoe v. Wadein 1973. The Supreme Court's decision also paved the way for the expansion of LGBTQ rights which are based on an individual's right to privacy from government intrusion.

Fig. 2 - Jane Roe and her attorney Gloria Allred. Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way forRoe v. Wadein 1973.

^{Snyder v. Massachusetts,291 U. S. 7,291 U. S. 105.}