GRISWOLD V CONNECTICUT 381 U.S 479 1965 GRISWOLD V CONNECTICUT U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS AN IMPLIED RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THIS CASE WITHIN A MARRIAGE THAT CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON OR REMOVED BY STATE LAW BACKGROUND IN 1879 THE CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW THAT PROHIBITED THE USE OF BIRTH CONTROL IN 1961 ESTELLE GRISWOLD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DR C LEE BUXTON MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF CONNECTICUT WERE CONVICTED UNDER THIS LAW FOR GIVING MEDICAL ADVICE AND INFORMATION TO MARRIED PEOPLE ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL THE PAIR APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT WHICH UPHELD THE CONVICTION DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON MARCH 29 30 1965 AND DECIDED ON JUNE 7 1965 BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 2 JUSTICE WILLIAM DOUGLAS SPOKE FOR THE COURT WITH JUSTICES ARTHUR GOLDBERG JOHN HARLAN AND BYRON WHITE CONCURRING THE COURT REVERSED THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CONNECTICUT LAW VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY FOR MARRIED PEOPLE THE COURT SAID THAT THE FIRST THIRD FOURTH FIFTH AND NINTH AMENDMENTS IMPLIED A GENERAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH THAT RIGHT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THOSE AMENDMENTS JUSTICES HUGO BLACK AND POTTER STEWART DISSENTED ARGUING THAT BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION THIS RULING WAS AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE PRESENT CASE THEN CONCERNS A RELATIONSHIP LYING WITHIN THE ZONE OF PRIVACY CREATED BY SEVERAL FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES AND IT CONCERNS A LAW WHICH IN FORBIDDING THE USE OF CONTRACEPTIVES RATHER THAN REGULATING THEIR MANUFACTURE OR SALE SEEKS TO ACHIEVE ITS GOALS BY MEANS HAVING A MAXIMUM DESTRUCTIVE IMPACT UPON THAT RELATIONSHIP SUCH A LAW CANNOT STAND IN LIGHT OF THE FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE SO OFTEN APPLIED BY THIS COURT THAT A GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE TO CONTROL OR PREVENT ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION MAY NOT BE ACHIEVED BY MEANS WHICH SWEEP UNNECESSARILY BROADLY AND THEREBY INVADE THE AREA OF PROTECTED FREEDOMS WE DEAL WITH A RIGHT OF PRIVACY OLDER THAN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OLDER THAN OUR POLITICAL PARTIES OLDER THAN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM MARRIAGE IS A COMING TOGETHER FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE HOPEFULLY ENDURING AND INTIMATE TO THE DEGREE OF BEING SACRED
