Editing Griswold v. Connecticut

{{distinguish|Griswold, Connecticut}}
{{Short description|1965 U.S. Supreme Court case on contraception}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2022}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Griswold v. Connecticut
| ArgueDateA = March 29
| ArgueDateB = 30
| ArgueYear = 1965
| DecideDate = June 7
| DecideYear = 1965
| FullName = Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton v. Connecticut
| ParallelCitations = 85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 510; 1965 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 2282
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
| USVol = 381
| USPage = 479
| Prior = Defendants convicted, Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit, 01-02-62; affirmed, Circuit Court, Appellate Division, 01-07-63; affirmed, 200 [[Atlantic Reporter|A.2d]] 479 ([[Connecticut Supreme Court|Conn.]] 1964); probable jurisdiction noted, {{ussc|379|926|1964|el=no}}.
| Subsequent = None
| Holding = The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]]. [[Connecticut Supreme Court]] reversed.
| Majority = Douglas
| JoinMajority = Warren, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg
| Concurrence = Goldberg
| JoinConcurrence = Warren, Brennan
| Concurrence2 = Harlan (in judgment)
| Concurrence3 = White (in judgment)
| Dissent = Black
| JoinDissent = Stewart
| Dissent2 = Stewart
| JoinDissent2 = Black
| LawsApplied = [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. I]], [[Third Amendment to the United States Constitution|III]], [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|IV]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|V]], [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution|IX]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]; [[Connecticut General Statutes|Conn. Gen. Stat.]] §§&nbsp;53-32, 54-196 (rev. 1958)
}}

'''''Griswold v. Connecticut''''', 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark decision]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in which the Court ruled that the [[Constitution of the United States]] protects the liberty of married couples to use [[contraceptives]] without government restriction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Roraback |first=Catherine G |title=''Griswold v. Connecticut'': A Brief Case History |journal=Ohio NUL}}</ref> The case involved a [[Connecticut]] "[[Comstock Act of 1873#Historical background|Little Comstock Act]]" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens&nbsp;... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the [[Privacy laws of the United States|right to privacy]] with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".<ref name="scotus">{{ussc|name=Griswold v. Connecticut|volume=381|page=479|year=1965}}.</ref>

Although the [[U.S. Bill of Rights]] does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice [[William O. Douglas]] wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice [[Arthur Goldberg]] wrote a concurring opinion  to clarify that the Ninth Amendment shows the framers' view that fundamental rights are protected outside of those listed in the first eight amendments, and that similarly, for purposes of what is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, there are fundamental rights outside those specified in those amendments, Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]] wrote a concurring opinion arguing that privacy is protected by the [[due process clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]], while Justice [[Byron White]] argued that Connecticut's law failed the [[rational basis]] standard.

== Background ==
''Griswold v. Connecticut'' originated as a prosecution under the Connecticut [[Comstock Act]] of 1873. The law made it illegal to use "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception...". Violators could be "... fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned".<ref name="scotus" />

In the late 19th and early 20th century, physicians in the United States largely avoided the publication of any material related to birth control, even when they often recommended or at least gave advice regarding it to their married patients. Then in 1914, [[Margaret Sanger]] openly challenged the public consensus against contraception.<ref>{{cite book|title = Griswold V. Connecticut|last = Johnson|first = John W.|publisher = University of Kansas|year = 2005|isbn = 0-7006-1378-1|pages = 8–10}}</ref>  She influenced the Connecticut Birth Control League (CBCL) and helped to develop the eventual concept of the [[Planned Parenthood]] clinics.<ref>{{Cite web |title=History & Impact of Planned Parenthood |url=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-history |access-date=February 28, 2022 |website=Planned Parenthood}}</ref>

The first Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in [[Hartford, Connecticut|Hartford]]. It provided services to women who had no access to a gynecologist, including information about artificial contraception and other methods to plan the growth of their families. Several clinics were opened in Connecticut over the following years, including the [[Waterbury, Connecticut|Waterbury]] clinic that led to the legal dispute. In 1939, this clinic was compelled to enforce the 1879 anti-contraception law. This caught the attention of the CBCL leaders, who remarked on the importance of birth control for cases in which the lives of the patients depended upon it.<ref>{{cite book|title = Griswold V. Connecticut|last = Johnson|first = John W.|publisher = University of Kansas|year = 2005|isbn = 0-7006-1378-1|pages = Chapter 2}}</ref>

During the 1940s, two cases arose from the provision of contraception by the Waterbury clinic, leading to legal challenges to the constitutionality of the Comstock law, but these failed on technical grounds. In ''[[Tileston v. Ullman]]'' (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the law on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked [[standing (law)|standing]] to sue on behalf of his patients. [[Yale School of Medicine]] gynecologist [[C. Lee Buxton]] and his patients brought a second challenge to the law in ''[[Poe v. Ullman]]'' (1961). The Supreme Court again dismissed the appeal, on the grounds that the case was not ''[[Ripeness|ripe]]'': the plaintiffs had not been charged or threatened with prosecution, so there was no actual controversy for the Court to resolve.

The polemic around ''Poe'' led to the appeal in ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', primarily based on the dissent of Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]] in ''Poe'', one of the most cited dissents in Supreme Court history.{{Citation needed|date=May 2022}}

{{blockquote|(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms in the United States; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.|Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissent in ''Poe v. Ullman''.<ref>{{cite book|title = Griswold V. Connecticut|last = Johnson|first = John W.|publisher = University Press of Kansas|year = 2005|isbn = 0-7006-1378-1|pages = Chapter 5}}</ref>}}

He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter, he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. On the basis of this interpretation, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution.

After ''Poe'' was handed down in June 1961,  the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge the law again. [[Estelle Griswold]] served on the PPLC as executive director from 1954 to 1965.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Cheek|first=Jeannette Bailey|date=March 17, 1976|title=Estelle Griswold oral history interview about her part in Griswold v. Connecticut, legal challenge to Connecticut birth control law|journal=Women's Studies Manuscript Collections from the Schlesinger Library: Voting Rights, National Politics, and Reproductive Rights|via=ProQuest History Vault}}</ref> Struggling through legal battles against birth control restrictions in Connecticut, Griswold and PPLC made an initial effort to financially support women who wanted contraceptives to bus to cities in New York and Rhode Island.<ref name=":0" /> Griswold<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.cwhf.org/inductees/reformers/estelle-griswold/|title = Estelle Griswold|publisher =Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame}}</ref> and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer),<ref>{{cite web|url = http://actionspeaksradio.org/griswold-v-connecticut/#.UbZVV_mTgV0|title = 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Contraception as a right of privacy? The Supreme Court says, 'Yes!'|publisher = Action Speaks Radio|year = 2012|access-date = June 10, 2013|archive-date = March 3, 2014|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140303180439/http://actionspeaksradio.org/griswold-v-connecticut/#.UbZVV_mTgV0|url-status = dead}}</ref> opened a birth control clinic in [[New Haven, Connecticut]],<ref name="Garrow">{{cite journal|url = http://www.davidgarrow.com/File/DJG2011ABAGriswold.pdf|title = Human Rights Hero. The Legacy of Griswold V. Connecticut.|last = Garrow|first = David J.|date =Spring 2011|journal = Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities}}</ref> "thus directly challeng[ing] the state law".<ref name=":0" /> The clinic opened on November 1, 1961, and that same day received its first ten patients and dozens of appointment requests from married women who wanted birth control advice and prescriptions. Less than two days after the fact, police officers arrived, to which Griswold explained in detail both the operations of the clinic and openly admitted to breaking state law. A week later, the detectives arrived with arrest warrants.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Garrow |first=David J. |date=2011 |title=Human Rights Hero: The Legal Legacy of "Griswold v. Connecticut" |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23032421 |journal=Human Rights |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=26–25 |jstor=23032421 |issn=0046-8185}}</ref> Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried in a one-day [[bench trial]],<ref name=":1" /> found guilty, and fined $100 each.<ref name="PBS Griswold">{{cite web |url = https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html|title = EXPANDING CIVIL RIGHTS Landmark Cases Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)|author = Alex McBride|publisher = PBS|date = December 2006}}</ref> The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the [[Connecticut Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Zzz41t_0ufEC&pg=PA44 |title = The Baby Matrix|author = Laura Carroll|publisher = LiveTrue Books |isbn = 978-0-615-64299-4|date = July 2012}}</ref>

== Supreme Court decision ==
On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Griswold that struck down Connecticut's state law against contraceptives.

===Opinion of the Court===
[[File:Justice_William_O_Douglas.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.9|Justice [[William O. Douglas]], the author of the majority opinion in ''Griswold'']]
Seven justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by [[Associate Justice of the United States|justice]] [[William O. Douglas]]. The Court held that the U.S. Constitution protects "marital privacy" as a fundamental constitutional right, but it rejected the notion it needed to identify only a singular source for the right in the Constitution's text.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 882}} The Court rejected the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution]] as the source of the marital privacy right, because at the time the Court still formally rejected the doctrine of [[substantive due process]] due to its association with the 1905 decision ''[[Lochner v. New York]]'', and with economic problems, business affairs and social conditions rather than the intimate relationships of married persons and their physicians.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 882}}{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;18.27}}

Instead of trying to justify the right to marital privacy under substantive due process, the Court said that the marital relationship is one "lying within the zone of privacy governed by several fundamental constitutional guarantees" and the opinion discusses various landmark cases where specific parts of the bill of rights have been held to cover areas that are not necessary included in the text of their own specific provisions within the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], such as how the right of association is deemed covered by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]], and other examples noted involved the [[Third Amendment to the United States Constitution|Third]], [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth]], and Fifth Amendments.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 882}}  It referenced earlier cases where the Court had found personal liberties that were constitutionally protected despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as the constitutional right to parental control over childrearing found in the early 20th century cases ''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]'' (1923) and ''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'' (1925).{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§&nbsp;18.27}} The Court viewed marital privacy right's implicit nature to be similar, and in a now well-known line Douglas used the metaphor of shined light and its shadows to describe it.
{{Blockquote
|text=The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have [[penumbra (law)|penumbra]]s, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. 
... 
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.
|source=''Griswold v. Connecticut'', 381 U.S. at 484–85 (case citations omitted).<ref>Quoted in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 882}}.</ref>
}}
Reasoning that the provisions of the Bill of Rights created "emanations" of protection that created "penumbras" within which rights could still be covered even if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, Douglas wrote that the right to marital privacy fell within this protection. The Court concluded that Connecticut's Comstock Law violated this right to privacy, and therefore was unconstitutional.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 882}}  Douglas reasoned that the right to marital privacy was "older than the Bill of Rights", and ended the opinion with an impassioned appeal to the sanctity of marriage in the Anglo-American culture and [[common law]] tradition.
{{Blockquote
|text=<poem>Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
   We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.</poem>
|source=''Griswold'', 381 U.S. at 485–86.<ref>Quoted in part in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 882}}.</ref>
}}

===Concurrences===
Justice [[Arthur Goldberg]] concurred with the Court and wrote a separate opinion to emphasize his view that the [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Ninth Amendment]]{{mdash}}which states that if the Constitution enumerates certain rights but does not enumerate others it does not mean that the other rights do not exist{{mdash}}was sufficient authority on its own to support the Court's finding of a fundamental constitutional right to marital privacy.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 883}} Justice [[John Marshall Harlan (1899–1971)|John Marshall Harlan II]] also concurred with the Court, and wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the right to privacy should be protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice [[Byron White]] concurred only in the judgment, and wrote an opinion describing how he thought Connecticut's law failed [[rational basis scrutiny]], saying: "I wholly fail to see how the ban on the use of contraceptives by married couples in any way reinforces the State's ban on illicit sexual relationships."<ref>''Griswold'', 381 U.S. at 505 (White, J., concurring in the judgment), quoted in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 883}}.</ref>

===Dissents===
Justices [[Hugo Black]] and [[Potter Stewart]] dissented from the Court's decision. Both justices' dissents argued that because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly mention privacy in any of its provisions, the Court had no basis to strike down Connecticut's Comstock Law.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 883}} Black's dissent concluded: "I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."<ref>''Griswold'', 381 U.S. at 508 (Black, J., dissenting), quoted in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;10.3.2, p. 883}}.</ref>

== 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>

== See also ==
* [[Bill Baird (activist)]]
* [[Birth control movement in the United States]]
* [[Catherine Roraback]]
* [[List of sex-related court cases in the United States]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 381]]
* ''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]''
* ''[[NAACP v. Alabama]]''
* [[Margaret Sanger]]
* ''[[McGee v. The Attorney General]]''

== References ==
===Citations===
{{Reflist|30em}}

===Works cited===
* {{cite book | first=Erwin | last=Chemerinsky | title=Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies | edition= 6th | location=New York | publisher=Wolters Kluwer | year=2019 | isbn=978-1-4548-9574-9 }}
* {{cite book | first1=John E. | last1=Nowak | first2=Ronald D. | last2=Rotunda | title=Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure | year=2012 | location=Eagan, Minnesota | publisher=West Thomson/Reuters| edition= 5th | oclc = 798148265 }}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal |last=Bailey |first=Martha J. |year=2010 |title='Momma's Got the Pill': How Anthony Comstock and ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' Shaped US Childbearing |journal=[[American Economic Review]] |volume=100 |issue=1 |pages=98–129 |doi=10.1257/aer.100.1.98 |pmid=29508974 |s2cid=4966500 |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w14675 |pmc=11835516 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Garrow |first=David J. |title=Human Rights Hero: The Legal Legacy of ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' |journal=Human Rights |year=2011 |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=26–25 |jstor=23032421 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Hasian |first=Marouf Jr. |title=Vernacular Legal Discourse: Revisiting the Public Acceptance of the 'Right to Privacy' in the 1960s |journal=Political Communication |volume=18 |issue=1 |year=2001 |pages=89–105 |doi=10.1080/10584600150217677 |s2cid=219727433 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Helscher |first=David |year=1994 |title=''Griswold v. Connecticut'' and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy |journal=Northern Illinois University Law Review |volume=15 |pages=33 |issn=0734-1490 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Kalman |first1=Laura |year=1994 |title=Review: The Promise and Peril of Privacy |journal=Reviews in American History |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=725–731 |doi=10.2307/2702826 |publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press |last2=Garrow |first2=David |jstor=2702826}}
* {{cite journal |last=Lockhart |first=Andrea |year=1997 |title=''Griswold v. Connecticut'': A Case Brief |journal=Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues |volume=14 |pages=35 |issn=0896-5595 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Loewy |first=Arnold H. |year=2003 |title=Morals Legislation and the Establishment Clause |journal=Alabama Law Review |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=159–182 |issn=0002-4279 |hdl=10601/600 |hdl-access=free }}
* Johnson, John W. ''Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth control and the constitutional right of privacy''. University Press of Kansas, 2005.
* {{cite book |title=I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases |last=Tushnet |first=Mark |year=2008 |publisher=Beacon Press |location=Boston |isbn=978-0-8070-0036-6 |pages=179–190}}

== External links ==
{{Wikisource|Griswold v. Connecticut|''Griswold v. Connecticut''}}
* {{caselaw source
 | case=''Griswold v. Connecticut'', {{ussc|381|479|1965|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107082/griswold-v-connecticut/
 | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/381/479.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep381/usrep381479/usrep381479.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
 }}
* [http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/21/Griswold-v-Connecticut ''Griswold v. Connecticut''] from [[C-SPAN]]'s ''[[Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions]]''

{{US14thAmendment|Due Process}}

[[Category:1965 in Connecticut]]
[[Category:1965 in United States case law]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:Birth control in the United States]]
[[Category:Birth control case law]]
[[Category:History of women in Connecticut]]
[[Category:Legal history of Connecticut]]
[[Category:Right to privacy under the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States Ninth Amendment case law]]
[[Category:United States privacy case law]]
[[Category:United States reproductive rights case law]]
[[Category:United States substantive due process case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:1965 in women's history]]