Griswold v.

Connecticut (1965)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

1. C. Lee Buxton, a gynecologist, and Estelle Griswold, head of Planned Parenthood in

Connecticut, opened a birth control clinic in Connecticut. In 1879 Conneteciut passed a
law banning the use of contraceptives, therefore they were both arrested.
2. The Constitutional issue was deciding whether the Constitution protects the marital right
to privacy against state restrictions on contraceptives. Based on several amendments in
the constitution, privacy can be inferred, preventing states from making contraceptives
illegal. More specifically, the court narrowed down to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th
amendments creating the right to privacy in marital relations.
3. The court ruled on a 7-2 vote that the Constitution did protect the right of marital privacy
against state restrictions on contraception. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendment
protected the right to privacy in marital relationships. It decided laws banning the use of
contraceptives were unconstitutional and violated the right to privacy.
4. Griswold v. Connecticut led to the recognition of privacy as a constitutional right,
preventing states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal, along
with paving the way to the legalization of birth control, and ultimately Roe v. Wade.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
1. Two Virginia residents, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, were in an interracial marriage,
and the two were married in the District of Colombia. Upon returning home to Virginia,
they were arrested and sentenced to one year in prison because they violated the state's
antimiscegenation statute.
2. The Constitutional issue was whether or not Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
3. The Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the Virginia laws against antimiscegenation
go against the Equal Protection Clause. They ruled that the Virginia law “had no
legitimate purpose”, and violated the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment and the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
4. Following the case, the Supreme Court made all antimiscegenation laws
unconstitutional, along with having a large impact on same-sex marriage cases.

Orr v. Orr (1979)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-1119
1. William and Lillian Orr were divorced, and William was forced to pay a monthly alimony
of $1,240. Lillian sued William for a lack of payments and because Alabama laws only
required husbands to pay alimony and not wives, he challenged these laws as
unconstitutional.
2. The Constitutional issue was whether or not Alabama's alimony statutes violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. In a ruling of 6-3, the court decided that Alabama's statutes were unconstitutional.
Former Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. maintained that under the Equal Protection
 Clause, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives.”,
meaning that gender-based distinctions made by the government need to have a
substantial justification.
4. Orr v. Orr set a precedent for equal treatment for genders in alimony disputes, ultimately
prohibiting gender-based discrimination in state laws.

1. A one-to-two sentence backstory

2. A clear statement of the Constitution issue at hand (including the interpretation of any
specific Constitutional clauses or amendments)
3. A summary of the court's ruling
4. A single sentence regarding the impact of the case moving forward (What was different
after this case was decided)

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were engaging in a private consensual sexual act
when Houston Police barged into his apartment after a reported weapons disturbance.
Both men were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse, which violated
Texas law which forbade two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate
sexual conduct.
The Constitutional issue was whether or not the crimminal convictions of Lawrence and
Garner violated the Equal Protection Laws under the 14th Amendment. Additionally,
another issue was if their crimminal convictions of private sexual acts inside the home
violated their fundamental rights to privacy and liberty as protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause.
In a ruling of 6-3, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause is violated by the Texas
law that makes it illegal for two people of the same sex to engage in specific intimate
sexual activities.
Lawrence v. Texas is an important case that decriminalized sexual conduct of the same
gender and overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
Groups of same-sex couples sued their state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and
Tennessee in the hopes of challenging the bans on same-sex marriages or the refusal to
recognize same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions. The plaintiff argued that these state
laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, one even brought claims under the Civil Rights Act.
The constitutional issue was whether or not states' ban on same-sex marriage was
unconstitutional and violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
In a ruling of 5-4, the Court decided that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects the right to marry, and that same analysis applies to same-sex
couples.
Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, which extended
same-sex couples' legal marriage recognition across the country.