You are on page 1of 6

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.

479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy". Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional. Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings, most notably in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. For the most part, the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism" by many conservatives. Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 29, 1965 Decided June 7, 1965 Full case Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton v. name Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (more) Citations 85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282 Defendants convicted, Circuit Court for the Prior Sixth Circuit, 1-2-62; affirmed, Circuit Court, history Appellate Division, 1-7-63; affirmed, 200 A.2d 479 (Conn. 1964) Subsequen None t history Holding A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed. Court membership Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Arthur Goldberg Case opinions Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Majority Goldberg Concurrenc Goldberg, joined by Warren, Brennan

Location: Planned Parenthood Birth Control Clinic Facts of the Case Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. and other medical treatment. 410 U. Griswold v. XIV. Since Griswold. most notably in Roe v. III. but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional. however. to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy". Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law". Furthermore. where the Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. Hugo Black and Potter Stewart. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial. Justice William O.[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism" by many conservatives. filed dissents. the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings. Conn. medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Wade. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. amends. For the most part. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. Two Justices. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling. By a vote of 7–2. the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. 1958) Griswold v. V. 479 (1965). I. the statute was almost never enforced. joined by Black Laws applied U. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug. 54–196 (rev.e Concurrenc Harlan e Concurrenc White e Dissent Black. 113 (1973). Stat. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. the challenges had failed on technical grounds. Connecticut.S. 381 U. joined by Stewart Dissent Stewart. IV. instruction. IX. Question Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Argument Conclusion .S. Attempts were made to test the constitutionality of the law. Gen. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information. §§ 53-32. Const. the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy"." Although the law was passed in 1879. he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered.S.

create a new constitutional right. that establish a right to privacy.Decision: 7 votes for Griswold. Third. and Ninth Amendments. the First. the right to privacy in marital relations. Together. Fourth. the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras. or zones. 2 vote(s) against Legal provision: Due Process Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy. Lawphil Main Menu Lawphil Main Menu > Constitution > Constitution > Statutes > Statutes > Jurisprudence > Jurisprudence > Judicial Issuances > Judicial Issuances > Executive Issuances > Executive Issuances > Treatise > Treatise > Legal Link > Legal Link lawphil . The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

m. respondents. nagaaply ka sa States.000.: A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. nakalimot ka na kung paano ka napunta rito. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City alleging that the private respondent. 1995 SOCORRO D. pero ilan beses na nila akong binalikan. . and ESTER S. 2 The transcript reads as follows: Plaintiff Soccoro D. Garcia (ESG) — Ano ba ang nangyari sa 'yo. interests and other reliefs awardable at the trial court's discretion. naka duty ako noon. GARCIA. Ramirez (Chuchi) — Good Afternoon M'am. kinabukasan hindi ka na pumasok. J." contrary to morals. ayaw kung (sic) mag explain ka. No. porke member ka na. kung kakailanganin ang certification mo.G. petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral damages. allegedly vexed. Ester S. Ngayon ako ang babalik sa 'yo. vs. in addition to costs. insulted and humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality..00. (Sic) CHUCHI — Hindi m'am. ESG — Tapos iniwan no. sabing ganoon — ESG — Ito and (sic) masasabi ko sa 'yo. Garcia. kasi hanggang 10:00 p. in a confrontation in the latter's office. CHUCHI — Kasi. magsumbong ka kung ano ang gagawin ko sa 'yo. attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation in the amount of P610. kalimutan mo na kasi hindi ka sa akin makakahingi. KAPUNAN.R. good customs and public policy. nag-aaply ka sa review mo." 1 In support of her claim. 93833 September 28. RAMIREZ. Defendant Ester S. petitioner. The transcript on which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.

ESG — Kaso ilang beses na akong binabalikan doon ng mga no (sic) ko. . kung on your own merit alam ko naman kung gaano ka "ka bobo" mo. CHUCHI — Itutuloy ko na M'am sana ang duty ko. ESG — Nakalimutan mo na ba kung paano ka pumasok sa hotel. CHUCHI — Kumuha kami ng exam noon. Panunumbyoyan na kita (Sinusumbatan na kita). Kasi ang ano ko talaga noon icocontinue ko up to 10:00 p. Nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka nakapasok dito "Do you think that on your own makakapasok ka kung hindi ako. ESG — Bastos ka.CHUCHI — Hindi M'am. Marami ang nag-aaply alam kong hindi ka papasa.m. nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka pumasok dito sa hotel. Magsumbong ka sa Union kung gusto mo.