GRISWORLD VS CONNECTICUT

Brief Fact Summary. Appellants were charged with violating a statute preventing
the distribution of advice to married couples regarding the prevention of conception.
Appellants claimed that the statute violated the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The right of a married couple to privacy is protected by
the Constitution.
Facts. Appellant Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut and Appellant Buxton, a licensed physician who served as Medical
Director for the League at its Center in New Haven, were arrested and charged with
giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons on means of
preventing conception. Appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100
each. Appellants appealed on the theory that the accessory statute as applied
violated the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellants claimed
standing based on their professional relationship with the married people they
advised.
Issue. Does the Constitution provide for a privacy right for married couples?

Held. The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from
governmental intrusion, which although not expressly included in the Amendment,
is necessary to make the express guarantees meaningful. The association of
marriage is a privacy right older than the Bill of Rights, and the States effort to
control marital activities in this case is unnecessarily broad and therefore impinges
on protected Constitutional freedoms.

Dissent. Justice Stewart and Justice Black. Although the law is silly, it is not
unconstitutional. The citizens of Connecticut should use their rights under the 9th
and 10th Amendment to convince their elected representatives to repeal it if the
law does not conform to their community standards.
Concurrence. Justice Goldberg, the Chief Justice, and Justice Brennan. The right to
privacy in marriage is so basic and fundamental that to allow it to be infringed
because it is not specifically addressed in the first eight amendments is to give the
9th Amendment no effect.
Justice Harlan. The relevant statute violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment because if violates the basic values implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty.

Discussion. The right to privacy in marriage is not specifically protected in either

the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is a right so firmly rooted in
tradition that its protection is mandated by various Constitutional Amendments,
including the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments.