Estelle T. Griswold et al. v.

State of Connecticut
June 7, 1965
Legal Framework
Article II
Section 12: The State recognizes the sanctity of the family life and shall protect and

strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right
and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for the civic efficiency and the development
of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
Section 14: The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure

the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Article III
Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of

law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Article XV
Section 1: The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.

Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
Section 2: Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and

shall be protected by the State.

Section 3: The State shall defend:

o
The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions
and the demands of responsible parenthood;
o
The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development;
o
The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
o
The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
Section 4: The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also

do so through just programs of social security.

Facts
Appellants:

o
Estelle Griswold
Executive Director, Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut

Planned Parenthood: organization that assists people in learning about and

using various forms of birth control

o
Buxton
Licensed physician and professor, Yale Medical School

Offense: Gave information, instruction and medical advice to married persons as to the

means of preventing conception

o
Examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device for her use
Statues violated:

o
53-32, General Statutes of Connecticut: "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.
o
54-196, General Statutes of Connecticut: "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."
Initial
verdict: found guilty as accessories, fined $100 each

Issue
Does Connecticut's birth control law unconstitutionally intrude upon the right of marital

privacy?
o
Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process Clause
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they
reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
protects liberties rooted in tradition that are considered fundamental -->

privacy is one of those fundamental personal rights

o
First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances."
"peripheral" rights that stem from specific rights, which in essence, make

these specific rights more secure

E.g. right to freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to
utter or to print, but also the right to distribute, the right to receive, and the
right to read, as well as the freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and
freedom to teach; right of association including the right to express one's
attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group
Penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion: various

guarantees create zones of privacy

Right to privacy further affirmed in several amendments

Third: prohibition against quartering of soldiers ("No soldier shall, in

time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner,
nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.")

Fourth: be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ("The

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.")

Fifth (Self-Incrimination Clause): right to create a zone of privacy which

government may not force him to surrender to his detriment ("No person
shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land
or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.")

Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not

be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Means that rights not limited to only those specified

Ruling

Reversed: present case falls within the zone of privacy created by the aforementioned
fundamental constitutional guarantees
Forbidding use of contraceptives instead of regulating manufacture or sale --> maximum
destructive impact on (marital?) relationship
Law encroaches upon a fundamental personal liberty

Separate Opinions
Justice Goldberg, concurring

o
Due Process Clause
o
Emphasis on Ninth Amendment: ensures that unmentioned rights are still rights (i.e.
peripheral ones)
Completely ignored if right to privacy in marriage is infringed upon simply

because it is not explicitly mentioned

Parallel example: no provision of the Constitution specifically prevents the

government from curtailing the marital right to bear children and raise a family
o
No proof that the Connecticut birth control law serves any subordinating state
interest which is either compelling or necessary
o
Ruling not about promiscuity or misconduct
o
Law instead serves the state's policy against all forms of promiscuous or illicit
sexual relationships, both premarital or extramartial, but without explanation on how
its effectiveness or connection (no middle analysis)
Justice Black, dissenting

o
Not a fan of the law
o
Must distinguish between speech and conduct
Defendants were active participants in teaching people how to violate the

Connecticut law, which was in effect at the time

o
Privacy as a broad, abstract, and ambiguous concept
o
Due Process Clause, or any other clause for that matter, does not grant judiciary the
power to measure constitutionality by their belief that legislation is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose
Justice Stewart, dissenting

o
Not a fan of the law
o
If Connecticut likes the law and it is not unconstitutional, then they have the right to
apply that law
Thomas S. Eisenstadt v. William R. Baird
March 22, 1972
Facts
Appellant: Thomas S. Eisenstadt

Appellee: William R. Baird

Offenses:

o
Exhibited contraceptive articles in the course of delivering a lecture on
contraception to a group of students at Boston University
o
Gave a young woman a package of Ekmo vaginal foam at the close of his address
Law violated: It is a felony in the state of Massachusetts for anyone to give away a drug,

medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of 1) a
registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or 2) an active
registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting a registered physician's
prescription
Baird was neither an authorized distributor under the statute nor a single person unable to

obtain contraceptives
Initial decision:

Acquitted of first offense because it was within his First Amendment rights to exhibit
contraceptives
o
Convicted for second offense of giving away foam
Massachusetts General Laws statutory scheme for distribution of contraceptives:
o
Married persons can obtain for pregnancy prevention, but only from doctors or
druggists on prescription
o
Single persons cannot at all, if for pregnancy prevention
o
Married or single persons can obtain, if for the prevention of spread of disease
o

Issues
1 Right to assert the rights of another (third party rights)
o
Baird had sufficient interest in challenging the statute's validity
o
Relationship between Baird and those whose rights he seeks to assert: NOT
distributor and potential distributees, but advocate of the rights of persons to
contraceptives and those desirous of doing so
o
Act in itself was a challenge to the Massachusetts law
o
Impact of the litigation on third-party interests: people of Massachusetts using
contraceptives are not subject to prosecution, and so Baird is the advocate who will
assert their rights (because it is a felony to give it away to certain people, not
necessarily to use it)
2 Rationalization/grounds for different treatment between married and unmarried persons
o
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Does not deny states the power to treat different classes of persons in

different ways, but denies them the power to legislate that different treatment be
accorded to a classification that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or baseless (must have
ground of difference that explains different treatment)
Court: no such ground of difference exists to rationally explain different

treatment between married and unmarried persons

o
Reasons that cannot be used to rationalize the law:
Deterrence of premarital sex and illicit sexual relations between married and

unmarried persons (too many exceptions, like allowing them for the prevention of
disease but not pregnancy)
Conserve health needs of the community by regulating distribution of

potentially harmful articles (if true, statute would be discriminatory and overboard,
because otherwise unmarried persons should also be prescribed contraceptives
like married persons)
Prohibition on contraception (not a question resolved in the case, because

either way, rights must be the same for married and unmarried alike)
o
Violation of right to privacy (deciding whether to bear or beget a child, both for
married and single)
o
Conclusion: laws must be equal in operation