{"id":54768,"date":"2022-07-18T15:31:07","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T20:31:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/supreme-court-insights\/griswold-v-connecticut-case-summary.html"},"modified":"2022-07-18T15:31:07","modified_gmt":"2022-07-18T20:31:07","slug":"griswold-v-connecticut-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/supreme-court-insights\/griswold-v-connecticut-case-summary.html","title":{"rendered":"Griswold v. Connecticut Case Summary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Griswold v. Connecticut Case Summary<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Joseph Fawbush, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Griswold v. Connecticut <\/i>(1965) established the constitutional right of American couples to use birth control. But the decision has become significant for more than just birth control. It is the bedrock upon which the constitutional right to privacy was built.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

Without\u00a0Griswold v. Connecticut<\/i>, there may not be\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/i><\/a>,\u00a0Lawrence v. Texas<\/i><\/a>, or\u00a0Obergefell v. Hodges<\/i><\/a>, to name a few. These cases granted a right to abortion, a right to gay sex, and a right to same-sex marriage, respectively.<\/p>\r\n

It all started with\u00a0Griswold<\/i>. And while\u00a0Griswold<\/i>\u00a0is an old case, the issues discussed in the decision, and its holding, remain relevant and controversial today. Now that the U.S.\u00a0Supreme Court has overturned\u00a0Roe<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>and taken away one privacy right (the right to an abortion),<\/i>\u00a0the holding in\u00a0Griswold\u00a0<\/i>is on shakier ground than ever before.<\/p>\r\n

This article discusses the landmark\u00a0reproductive rights case<\/a>\u00a0and its impact on similar laws and cases.<\/p>\r\n

What Happened in Griswold v. Connecticut?<\/h2>\r\n

In 1965, Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a New Haven physician and a professor at Yale, were arrested and fined $100 for giving contraception advice to married couples.<\/p>\r\n

At the time, a Connecticut law prohibited the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception” and punished anyone who “assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another” to do so. Put simply, it wasn’t a crime to sell birth control devices, but\u00a0it was a crime to use birth control<\/a>\u00a0or any drug or medical instrument to prevent pregnancy or help anyone else use birth control. Griswold and Buxton were clearly in violation of the law.<\/p>\r\n

Griswold and Buxton sued the State of Connecticut, claiming the law violated their constitutional rights. The issue at stake was whether a married couple had a constitutional “right of privacy<\/a>” to receive counseling on the use of contraceptives.<\/p>\r\n

The “Zone of Privacy” In the Constitution<\/h2>\r\n

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice William Douglas, the Court decided that the state law against contraceptives violated a “zone of privacy<\/a>” inherent in the Constitution. Notably, the Court found constitutional protection emitting from “penumbras,” or shadows, within several amendments to the Constitution and the\u00a0Bill of Rights<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

As the majority opinion put it, “. . . specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” According to the Court, one of these guarantees is a certain measure of privacy and liberty from government control over private life and beliefs.<\/p>\r\n

In describing this right to privacy, the Court pointed to the\u00a0First<\/a>,\u00a0Third<\/a>,\u00a0Fourth<\/a>, and\u00a0Fifth<\/a>\u00a0Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment gives a right to free speech and freedom of religion. The Third prohibits the government from stationing troops in homes. The Fourth prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth, meanwhile, allows citizens to avoid incriminating themselves under oath. Looking at these amendments together, the majority found an underlying reliance on freedom and liberty in the home and in personal beliefs.<\/p>\r\n

Since laws prohibiting birth control target the most intimate aspects of couples’ lives, it violates this longstanding constitutional right to privacy. Any law encroaching on an individual’s privacy right must therefore be “compelling” and “narrowly tailored” to achieve an absolutely necessary government goal. This level of review is known as “strict scrutiny<\/a>.”<\/p>\r\n

It is extremely rare that any law survives strict scrutiny, and in\u00a0Griswold<\/i>, Connecticut’s prohibition on birth control was no different. The government’s interest in prohibiting birth control was neither absolutely necessary nor narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest. As such, the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court struck it down.<\/p>\r\n

Substantive Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment<\/h2>\r\n

As with all privacy rights cases, the majority in\u00a0Griswold<\/i>\u00a0also heavily relied on\u00a0substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment<\/a>. The due process clause is not part of the Bill of Rights. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment is a Reconstruction-era Amendment that provides in part: “\u201cNo person shall\u2026be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”<\/i><\/p>\r\n

There are two important concepts regarding “due process.” There is\u00a0procedural<\/i>\u00a0due process, which prohibits the government from taking away rights or liberties without going through proper legal channels. For example, the government cannot criminally sentence anyone without first proving them guilty of a crime at trial. There is also\u00a0substantive\u00a0<\/i>due process. This much more controversial aspect of due process involves rights so fundamental to America that the courts must subject any legislation infringing on them to strict scrutiny.<\/p>\r\n

The Fourteenth Amendment, unlike the Bill of Rights originally, also applies to state laws. This means that any state law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional.<\/p>\r\n

In\u00a0Griswold<\/i>, the Court found that the due process clause protects liberties that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” This includes the zones of privacy found throughout the Bill of Rights.<\/p>\r\n

A Quick Summary<\/h2>\r\n

Because\u00a0Griswold<\/i>\u00a0involves a complicated legal theory, a little confusion is understandable. Here is a quick summary of the holding in\u00a0Griswold<\/i>:<\/p>\r\n