Griswold v. Connecticut
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife'9 use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment. Held:
Printed on p. 479 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
1. Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44, distinguished. P. 481.
Printed on p. 479 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
2. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Pp. 481-486.
Printed on p. 479 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
151 Conn. 544, 200 A. 2d 479, reversed.
Printed on p. 479 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment XIV, Section 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt14.S1.3, Amdt14.S1.4.3, Amdt14.S1.6.3, Amdt14.S1.6.3.1, Amdt14.S1.6.3.3, Amdt14.S1.6.3.5, Amdt14.S1.6.3.6, pp. 2071, 2078, 2155, 2159, 2163, 2165.
- Amendment Isuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt1.8.1, pp. 1543, 1544.
- Amendment IIIsuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt3.1, Amdt3.2, Amdt3.3, pp. 1601, 1604.
- Amendment IXsuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt9.1, Amdt9.2, Amdt9.3, pp. 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)”:
- cited on 16 pages