Editing Griswold v. Connecticut (section)

== Precedent for later cases  ==
Later decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court extended the principles of ''Griswold'' beyond its particular facts.

===Right to birth control for unmarried couples, 1972===
''[[Eisenstadt v. Baird]]'' (1972) extended Griswold's holding to unmarried couples.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149138889/the-nation-still-fighting-eisenstadt-v-baird | title =The Nation: Still Fighting 'Eisenstadt v. Baird' | author =''[[Frances Kissling]]'', ''[[Jonathan D. Moreno]]'' | author2 =The Nation | publisher =npr.org | date =March 22, 2012| author2-link =The Nation }}</ref> The argument in ''Eisenstadt'' was that it was a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under ''Griswold'').<ref>{{cite web | url=http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972 | title =Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)<!--the title is actually "Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)"--> | author =Sheraden Seward | publisher =[[Arizona State University]] |date=December 3, 2008 |website=embryo.asu.edu}}</ref> Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples as well.

===Right to abortion for any woman, 1973===
The reasoning and language of both ''Griswold'' and ''Eisenstadt'' were cited in the concurring opinion by Associate Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in support of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', 410 U.S. 113 (1973).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZC.html | title =Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18) 314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part. STEWART, J., Concurring Opinion SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES | author =Cornell University Law School | publisher =law.cornell.edu| author-link =Cornell University Law School }}</ref> The decision in ''Roe'' struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roemoot.html | title =ROE v. WADE 410 U.S. 113 (1973) | author =University of Missouri-Kansas City | publisher =umkc.edu | date =January 22, 1973| author-link =University of Missouri-Kansas City }}</ref> The Court ruled that this law was a violation of the [[Due Process Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment. Abortion became legalized for any woman for any reason, up through the first trimester, with possible restrictions for maternal health in the second trimester (the midpoint of which is the approximate time of fetal viability). In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion is potentially illegal with exception for the mother's health, which the court defined broadly in ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]''. On June 24, 2022, ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson]]'' overturned ''Roe'', reversing the application of the Due Process Clause in the case of abortion and returning its regulation to state control under the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]].

===Right to contraception for juveniles at least 14 years of age, 1977===

In ''[[Carey v. Population Services International]]'' (1977) the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was [[unconstitutional]] to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives. The Court also held that the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] does not allow a state to intrude on an individual's decisions on matters of procreation which is protected as [[privacy rights]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Carey v. Population Services International|volume=431|page=678|pin=|year=1977}}</ref>

===Right to privacy in private sexual activity, 2003===
''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' (2003) struck down a Texas sodomy law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled ''[[Bowers v. Hardwick]]'' (1986), declaring that the "Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]], who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of [[rational basis]] review. [[Justice Kennedy]]'s majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected by the [[due process clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched "upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home", and attempted to "control a personal relationship that ... is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished". Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in ''Lawrence'' was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the "right to privacy" found in ''Griswold'' as the "most pertinent beginning point" in the evolution of the concepts embodied in ''Lawrence.''<ref>{{ussc|name=Lawrence v. Texas|volume=539|page=558|pin=|year=2003}}.</ref>

===Right to same-sex marriage, 2015===
''Griswold'' was also cited in a chain of cases that led the Supreme Court to legalize [[same-sex marriage]] in another landmark case, ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''.

===Right to abortion overturned, 2022===
On June 24, 2022, the majority opinion in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' written by Justice [[Samuel Alito]] limited the right to privacy to exclude the right to an abortion. In Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]' concurrence, he argued, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including ''Griswold'', ''Lawrence'', and ''Obergefell'', ... Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous' ... we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," referring to decisions on contraception, sodomy, and same-sex marriage as future cases for the Supreme Court to reverse.<ref name="Sneed 2022">{{cite news | url = https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/abortion-ruling-gay-rights-contraceptives/index.html | title = Supreme Court's decision on abortion could open the door to overturn same-sex marriage, contraception and other major rulings | first = Tierney | last = Sneed | date = June 24, 2022 | access-date = June 24, 2022 | publisher = [[CNN]] | archive-date = June 24, 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220624174858/https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/abortion-ruling-gay-rights-contraceptives/index.html | url-status = live }}</ref> Broadly, Justice Thomas does not believe in [[substantive due process]] and has referred to it as 'legal fiction'.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Robin |first=Corey |date=2022-07-09 |title=The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of Clarence Thomas |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-self-fulfilling-prophecies-of-clarence-thomas |access-date=2024-06-11 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref> In regards to [[unenumerated rights]], the majority opinion also said, "The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of 'liberty'."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-dobbs-jackson-analysis-roe-wade.html|title=The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 24, 2022|access-date=June 27, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |date=24 June 2022 |litigants=Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization |vol= 597 |reporter = U.S. |opinion = ____ |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf |access-date=24 June 2022 }}</ref>

The dissenting opinion criticized the majority for overturning precedents dating back to ''Griswold'', and argued, "And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right ''Roe'' and ''Casey'' recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions ... So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."<ref name="Sneed 2022"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/|title=Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U. S. ____ (2022)|website=Justia|date=May 16, 2021|access-date=June 27, 2022}}</ref>