Griswold v. Connecticut

Brief Fact Summary.

The Appellants, Griswold and Buxton (Appellants), were fined for violating Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A state cannot ban married couples from using contraception.

Facts.

The Appellants gave information, instruction, and medical advice on the means of preventing contraception to married couples. The Appellants were subsequently found guilty of being accessories in the violation of a Connecticut statute forbidding the use of contraceptives.

Issue.

Can a state forbid married couples from using contraception?

Held.

No. Married couples have a right to privacy within their bedroom. The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. However, various guarantees contained within the Bill of Rights create zones of privacy. Given that a right to privacy exists, there is no conceivable way that a state could enforce a ban on contraception without violating a married couple’s right to privacy.

Dissent.

Justice Black: The Connecticut statute is constitutional because there is no specific provision in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to privacy.

Justice Stewart: None of the six provisions of the Constitution cited by the Supreme Court apply to this case. To hold otherwise is to reduce constitutional adjudication to a play on words.

Concurrence.

The Bill of Rights has no bearing on the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

Discussion.

Each specific right protected in the Constitution impliedly protects other rights that are vital to exercising the specifically protected right. The specific protections would be meaningless without protecting these implied rights. An example would be the right to free speech and the right to assemble. The right to assemble is implied from the right to free speech. The right to free speech could be circumvented if the right to assemble was not protected.