Diego Ortiz-Monasterio

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Historical Context

On one hand, this case was heard during the Warren Court years. This court ruled on issues like the desegregation of schools, criminal rights, and personal rights. Some examples of these kinds of cases include: Brown v. Board of Education, Griffin v. Illinois, and Miranda v. Arizona.[1] As you will see with the outcome of this court case, the Warren Court was very involved in Judicial Review. The court was able to do this because of its “decision to decide”[2] At the time of the case, there were various laws in Connecticut that outlawed the use of contraceptives. These laws were hard to enforce and involved any kind of contraceptive in any case. Solely by knowing the sentiment of the Supreme Court at the time you can be very sure that the decision that the Supreme Court made would vastly change personal law.

Relevant Precedent

There

was no real precedent for the case.  It created precedent in that it asserted a "right to privacy" not previously guaranteed in either law or the Constitution. 

Story behind Griswold v. Connecticut

            The first appellant, Griswold, was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. The second was Buxton, who was a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School. On November 10^th, 1961 they were arrested for breaking the contraception laws of Connecticut and eventually fined 100$ each. This is because they gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married couples in the area of contraception. They prescribed contraceptives to the couples depending on what the couples wanted. During this time there was a law in Connecticut that outlawed contraceptives in general, it stated that

“Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.” and “Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.”[4]

The court of appeals and Connecticut’s highest court confirmed the initial arrest and fine. This case was then taken to the Supreme Court on the premise that the lower courts' rulings had neglected Griswold’s and Buxton’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Composition of the Court

            As stated earlier the Court that ruled on this case was the Warren Court. This Court was led by Earl Warren, a Chief Justice that was able to rally the Supreme Court Justices to agree on very controversial issues like the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Other Justices of the court included William J. Brennan Jr. a very progressive Justice. William O. Douglas, a huge civil rights advocate, and Hugo Black, who was an advocate of a “textualist” interpretation of the United States Constitution, similar to current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Constitutional Question as defined by the Supreme Court

            The main question the Supreme Court asked was “Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?”[5] Essentially this question was not just about one Amendment or specific area of the Constitution but more an interpretation of a blend of these.

Decision and Ramifications

The decision that the Supreme Court came to was a highly controversial ruling that essentially created the right of privacy. In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court stated that several of the Constitution’s Amendments and past Supreme Court case rulings set up the framework for a right to privacy. The majority of the Justices argued that it was a combination between the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments that set up the right to privacy. This was argued as follows

“The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”[6]

Essentially the Supreme Court used various parts of the Constitution to use as justification of a right to privacy. While this word is never even written in the Constitution or the Amendments, the Supreme Court still felt that due to the penumbra of the Constitution and its Amendments a right to privacy is implied. It was also heavily based off the language in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ramifications of this decision were and are enormous. Although there were some Supreme Court cases ruled on something like this it was usually related to the Fourteenth Amendment, not a conglomerate of Amendments like in this case. It is important to note that the Supreme Court only decided that married could use contraceptives. So an important ramification of this case was the precedent that was used in Eisendstadt v. Baird. The Supreme Court ruled that not only married couples may use contraceptives but also unmarried couples. It also set precedent for Roe v. Wade, a landmark abortion case. In this case, it was ruled that women have the right to privacy and therefore have the right to determine whether or not their own pregnancy should be aborted in the first trimester.

Position on Opinion

            The Supreme Court did the right thing when they decided upon the right to privacy. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision because it allows the government to have to explain themselves before they invade our privacy. Although currently with the Patriot Act this might not be happening to a full extent, it still helps the American people and limits the abuse the government can cause on its people.