Griswold v. Connecticut: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=June 7, 1965 | |date=June 7, 1965 | ||
|subject=Health Law | |subject=Health Law | ||
| | |appealed_from=Connecticut Supreme Court | ||
|related=Eisenstadt v. Baird | |||
|facts=[https://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Planned Parenthood]'s director in Connecticut was [https://www.cwhf.org/inductees/estelle-griswold Griswold] (defendant). Buxton was a physician working at the Planned Parenhood's Connecticut office. Both were arrested & charged under a state law that forbade the use of contraceptives by anyone including married couples. | |||
Griswold was fined $100 ([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=US%24100+%281964+US+dollars%29 $970 in 2023]). | |||
|procedural_history=Griswold fought her conviction alleging that the Connecticut Laws were violations of the due process clause (DPC) under the [[14th Amendment]]. | |||
Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Griswold's conviction. | |||
|holding=Connecticut's law banning the distribution of contraceptives is an [[Constitution of the United States|unconstitutional]] burden on the "right of marital privacy." | |holding=Connecticut's law banning the distribution of contraceptives is an [[Constitution of the United States|unconstitutional]] burden on the "right of marital privacy." | ||
|reasons=[[William O. Douglas]]: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the [[Bill of Rights]] have <span style="background:yellow">penumbra</span>s, formed by <span style="background:yellow">emanation</span>s from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." | |reasons=[[William O. Douglas]]: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the [[Bill of Rights]] have <span style="background:yellow">penumbra</span>s, formed by <span style="background:yellow">emanation</span>s from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." | ||
[[Arthur Goldberg]] saw the Connecticut law as a violation of the [[9th Amendment]]. | [[Arthur Goldberg]] saw the Connecticut law as a violation of the [[9th Amendment]]. | ||
|rule=The '''zone of privacy''' should extend to intimacies between married people including the use of contraception. | |||
|comments=*[[Constitutional_Liberties#Griswold_v._Connecticut]] | |comments=*[[Constitutional_Liberties#Griswold_v._Connecticut]] | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/ | |link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/ | ||
|case_text_source=Justia | |case_text_source=Justia | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/21/Griswold-v.-Connecticut | |||
|case_text_source=C-SPAN video discussion | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/griswold-v-connecticut | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:36, July 14, 2023
| Griswold v. Connecticut | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 7, 1965 |
| Appealed from | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Related | Eisenstadt v. Baird |
| Followed by | |
| Eisenstadt v. Baird | |
Facts
Planned Parenthood's director in Connecticut was Griswold (defendant). Buxton was a physician working at the Planned Parenhood's Connecticut office. Both were arrested & charged under a state law that forbade the use of contraceptives by anyone including married couples.
Griswold was fined $100 ($970 in 2023).Procedural History
Griswold fought her conviction alleging that the Connecticut Laws were violations of the due process clause (DPC) under the 14th Amendment.
Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Griswold's conviction.Holding
Connecticut's law banning the distribution of contraceptives is an unconstitutional burden on the "right of marital privacy."
Reasons
William O. Douglas: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
Arthur Goldberg saw the Connecticut law as a violation of the 9th Amendment.Rule
The zone of privacy should extend to intimacies between married people including the use of contraception.
