Zachary Figueroa Courts and Public Policy 27 November 2012 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.

479 (1965) The Facts of the Case The case here focuses on the Connecticut statute that effectively prohibited and criminalized the education and use of contraceptives within the state. Estelle Griswold among others were convicted of violating the law after they were found educating married couples about contraceptives. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the statute violated a multitude of Constitutional Amendments some of which include: the fourteenth, fifth, and fifth. The Court upon hearing the case effectually reversed the State Court ruling. The Law The United States Constitution Amendment I, III, IV, V, IX, XIV. The Connecticut Statute. Legal Questions 1. Does the Constitution specifically applied to Fourth and Fifth Amendment extend to protect the private rights of married couples in regard to their education about contraceptives? Yes 2. Can the State pass a law that restricts the Due Process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment? No Opinion of the Court (Justice Douglas) Essentially, the Court held that while its is not explicitly established in the Constitution individual privacy is a necessary product of the combined guarantees established by the Bill of Rights, together with the combined Amendments to the Construction. The opinion brings into the play the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments as a sort of grounds for implying a citizens right to privacy. As such the Court maintained that a married couples education regarding contraceptive practices was a private and protected right. This then being established, the Court necessarily agreed that the Connecticut Statute was unconstitutional in its intrusion into the private dealing of a married couple. Concurring Opinion (Justice Goldberg, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Brennan) In the concurrence, Justice Goldberg affirms, that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basica personal right retained by the people within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Connecticut cannot constitutionally abridge this fundamental right, which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. His argument encompasses thus that to appeal to first 8 Amendments for the basis of privacy negates the effectiveness of the Ninth Amendment that singularly works to include all fundamental rights. Concurring Opinion (Justice Harlan) Justice Harlan holds that, the proper constitutional inquiry in this case is whether this Connecticut statute infringes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the enactment violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. This case effectively stands on the claim that the state statute violate the Due Process Clause and as such maintains ground enough for being reversed.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Black and Stewart)

Zachary Figueroa Courts and Public Policy 27 November 2012 In this dissent Justice Black makes the claim that, government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. His argument here is that the law does not infringe upon any particular right but also that the government does in fact have the right to pass such a law because no prior provision restricts it. Furthermore, the Justice is of the opinion that the 14th and 9th Amendments do not necessarily apply but rather that this is a move by the court to effectively update the Constitution to meet the times. Dissenting Opinion (Justice Stewart and Black) Justice Stewart states, The Court says it is the right of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court. The dissenting Justice is of the opinion that there is no foundation to the Courts claim to rights of privacy and furthermore asserts that the Court fails to effectively establish which Amendments the Connecticut law infringes. Evaluation At first glance I do agree with Justice Stewarts claim that the Court does not say which of these Amendments, if any, it thinks is infringed by this Connecticut law. In the opinion and concurrence the arguments focus on establishing the right to privacy but essentially fail to conclude where exactly and explicitly the law fails to do so. However, I disagree with the dissent in that I do believe the Constitution, its Amendments, together with Bill of Rights effectively do join to together in their various provision and amount to establish individual rights of which include the right to privacy. I believe that is an integral part of our government and a fundamental right to be protected. I cannot accept the Connecticut law that would prohibit anyone from accessing any type of education for private or public purposes.