Griswold v. Connecticut: 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 6: | Line 6: | ||
|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]]. | |||
|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 | ||
Revision as of 21:24, March 5, 2023
| Griswold v. Connecticut | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 7, 1965 |
| Followed by | |
| Eisenstadt v. Baird | |
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.
