Diana Trochez

Case Name and Citation:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Facts:
Transactional Facts: The Executive Director of Planned Parenthood and a physician/professor gave
information, instructions and medical advice to a married couple to help them prevent conception. Both
appellants were found to have violated sections 253-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of CT. They
were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each.
Procedural Facts: Trial court found against appellants. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court
affirmed that judgment and so did the Supreme Court of Errors.
Issues:
1. Did the trial court err in finding that Appellants were accessories under the CT General Statutes?
2. Is the right to privacy, as afforded by the Constitution, violated when a State forbids the use of
contraceptives instead of regulating their sale or manufacture?
Holding and Judgment:
The trial court erredthis case deals with the right of privacy in a marriage [a right thats older than the
Bill of Rights]. The CT law directly operated on the intimate relationship of the husband, wife, and their
physicians role in one aspect of their relationship. The First Amendment provides this protection and the
State cannot control marital activities in an unnecessarily broad way as to infringe on constitutionally
protected freedoms.
Analysis:
1. States cannot regulate activities by any means that are unnecessarily board and that invade
protected areas. Here, the State has reached too far into the intimacy of the married couple and its
intrusions have been safeguarded by the penumbra of the First Amendment.
2. Marriage is so intimate as to be almost sacred. The right to privacy in marriage is no specifically
mentioned in the Constitution, but it is protected by some of the Amendments [1st, 9th, 14th
Amendments].
Other Opinions:
ConcurrenceJustice Goldberg, the Chief Justice, and Justice Brennanagree with the majority.
Add that the 9th Amendment supports the right of privacy in marriage. The concept of liberty is not so
restricted and embraces the right of marital privacy not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
ConcurrenceHarlanThe majoritys opinion takes the same approach taken by Black and Stewart;
that the Due Process Clause does not touch the CT Statute unless it violates a right found in the Bill of
Rights.
ConcurrenceWhiteCT deprives couples of the right to liberty without Due Process found in the 14th
Amendment.
DissentBlack and StewartThe law may not be wise or good policy, but it isnt unconstitutional.
There is no constitutional provision that forbids any law to be passed that abridges the privacy of
individuals. The term privacy is too broad and ambiguous and can be used as a constitutional ban against
many things other than searches and seizures. There is no specific provision that protections this type of
privacy.
Rule and Notes:
The right to privacy in marriage, although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is still protected
by some of the Amendments.
States cannot intrude into such an intimate relationship in trying to further their own policies.