GRISWOLD V.

CONNECTICUT
381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Procedural History/Facts
 Griswold – executive director of Planned Parenthood of CT. Buxton is licensed physician &
professor at Yale. He gave info, instruction, & medical advice to married persons as to the
means of preventing contraception.
 Statute says that any person who uses any drug, etc. for purpose of preventing contraception
shall be fined or imprisoned, or both.
 Appellants claimed that 14th Am violated.

Issue
Whether there is a constitutional right of privacy which is protected from government intrusion?

Holding
Yes, there is a constitutional right of privacy which is free from gov intrusion because there are
several fundamental rights are constitutionally protected even though not expressed in Bill of
Rights.

Reasoning
 Law operates on intimate relation btwn husband, wife & physician’s role.
 Not mentioned in Constitution but 1st Am construed to include certain of those rights
 1st Am has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.
 Specific guarantees in BoR have penumbras  create zones of privacy.
 Case here presents zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.
o Gov purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation
may x be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly & invade area of
protective freedoms.

Concurrence/Dissent
 Goldberg’s Concurrence –
o Agrees that concept of liberty protects fundamental personal rights, but it is not
confined to specific Bill of Rights
o Relies on 9th Amendment – Framers believed there are additional fundamental rights,
protected from gov infringement, which exist alongside those fund rights mentioned
in first 8 constitutional amendments
o To hold right so basic & fundamental & deeply rooted may be infringed b/c right x
guaranteed by first 8 am is to ignore 9th Am & give it no effect
 White’s Concurrence –
o CT statute deprives married couples of liberty w/o DP
o X see how ban on contraceptives reinforces State’s ban on illicit sexual relationships
o Can enforce did statute w/ same goals & effects
o Nothing justifying sweeping scope of statute & conclude that deprives persons of
liberty w/o DP.
 Black’s Dissent –
o Law is offensive
o Government has right to invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific
constitutional provision.
o 9th or 14th Am x proper basis for invalidating law.
 9th Am to limit fed gov to powers granted expressly or by necessary implication.
o Ct x granted power by DP or any other constitutional provision to measure
constitutionality by belief that leg is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or
accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offense to notions of civilized standards of
conduct
o Use of fed cts takes away from Congress & States power to make laws based on own
judgment of fairness & wisdom & transfers power to ct for ultimate determination 
power specifically denied to fed cts by Constitution
o No provision of constitution that which expressly or impliedly vests power in Ct to sit
as supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies & set aside laws
b/c of Ct’s belief that leg polices are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious, or
irrational.
 Adoption of such loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard will = great
unconstitutional shift of power to cts which will be bad for courts.
o Following maj will jeopardize separation of gov powers.
 Stewart’s Dissent –
o Nothing in Bill of Rights to invalidate CT law; to say 9th Amendment has anything to
do with this case is to abandon history.
o Court fails to identify any fundamental constitutional guarantee which can be used to
invalidate this law.