Eisenstadt v. Baird: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|court=Supreme Court of the United States | |court=Supreme Court of the United States | ||
|date=March 22, 1972 | |date=March 22, 1972 | ||
|subject=Health Law | |||
|case_treatment=No | |case_treatment=No | ||
|issues=Can Massachusetts criminalize distribution of contraceptives to unmarried couples? | |issues=Can Massachusetts criminalize distribution of contraceptives to unmarried couples? | ||
Revision as of 21:28, March 5, 2023
| Eisenstadt v. Baird | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | March 22, 1972 |
| Cited by | |
| Roe v. Wade | |
Issues
Can Massachusetts criminalize distribution of contraceptives to unmarried couples?
Holding
William Brennan held, "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
Reasons
The right of unmarried couples to use contraceptive rests on the Equal Protection Clause according to SCOTUS.
Comments
- Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#Griswold_v._Connecticut_Right_to_Intimate_Relations.2FPrivacy
- Unlike Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird deals with the right of unmarried heteronormative couples to possess contraceptives.
