Griswold v. State of Connecticut, No. 496

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS
Citation381 U.S. 479,85 S.Ct. 1678,14 L.Ed.2d 510
Docket NumberNo. 496
Decision Date07 June 1965
PartiesEstelle T. GRISWOLD et al. Appellants, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT

381 U.S. 479
85 S.Ct. 1678
14 L.Ed.2d 510
Estelle T. GRISWOLD et al. Appellants,

v.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.
Argued March 29, 1965.
Decided June 7, 1965.

Thomas I. Emerson, New Haven, Conn., for appellants.

Joseph B. Clark, New Haven, Conn., for appellee.

Page 480

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant Griswold is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven—a center open and operating from November 1 to November 10, 1961, when appellants were arrested.

They gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free.

The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are §§ 53—32 and 54—196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). The former provides:

'Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall 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.'

Section 54—196 provides:

'Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.'

The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each, against the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed that judgment. 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479. We noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 328, 13 L.Ed.2d 339.

Page 481

We think that appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603, is different, for there the plaintiff seeking to represent others asked for a declaratory judgment. In that situation we thought that the requirements of standing should be strict, lest the standards of 'case or controversy' in Article III of the Constitution become blurred. Here those doubts are removed by reason of a criminal conviction for serving married couples in violation of an aiding-and-abetting statute. Certainly the accessory should have standing to assert that the offense which he is charged with assisting is not, or cannot constitutionally be a crime.

This case is more akin to Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131, where an employee was permitted to assert the rights of his employer; to Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, where the owners of private schools were entitled to assert the rights of potential pupils and their parents; and to Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586, where a white defendant, party to a racially restrictive covenant, who was being sued for damages by the covenantors because she had conveyed her property to Negroes, was allowed to raise the issue that enforcement of the covenant violated the rights of prospective Negro purchasers to equal protection, although no Negro was a party to the suit. And see Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517; NAACP v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488; NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405. The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.

Coming to the merits, we are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overtones of some arguments

Page 482

suggest that Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937, should be our guide. But we decline that invitation as we did in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305; Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525, 69 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed. 212; Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563; Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834. We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation.

The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice—whether public or private or parochial—is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.

By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. State of Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143, 63 S.Ct. 862, 863, 87 L.Ed. 1313) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195, 73 S.Ct. 215, 220, 97 L.Ed. 216) indeed the freedom of the entire university community. Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 249—250, 261—263, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1211, 1217—1218, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 1085, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369, 84 S.Ct. 1316, 1321, 12 L.Ed.2d 377. Without

Page 483

those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases.

In NAACP v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1172, we protected the 'freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations,' noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid 'as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association.' Ibid. In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. In like context, we have protected forms of 'association' that are not political in the customary sense but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430—431, 83 S.Ct. 328, 336—337. In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796, we held it not permissible to bar a lawyer from practice, because he had once been a member of the Communist Party. The man's 'association with that Party' was not shown to be 'anything more than a political faith in a political party' (id., at 244, 77 S.Ct. at 759) and was not action of a kind proving bad moral character. Id., at 245—246, 77 S.Ct. at 759—760.

Those cases involved more than the 'right of assembly'—a right that extends to all irrespective of their race or idealogy. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 57 S.Ct. 255, 81 L.Ed. 278. The right of 'association,' like the right of belief (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion; and while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful.

Page 484

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. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516—522, 81 S.Ct. 1752, 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S.Ct. 524, 532, 29 L.Ed. 746, as protection against all governmental invasions 'of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'* We recently re-

Page...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3090 practice notes
  • BJRL v. State of Utah, Civ. No. C86-324G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • January 28, 1987
    ...(1967) (statute preventing marriages between persons on basis of racial classification violates due process); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (485-86), 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1682), 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy); Pierce ......
  • Stull v. School Board of Western Beaver Jr.-Sr. HS, No. 71-1674.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 13, 1972
    ...added: "Whether this right is designated as within the `penumbras\' of the first amendment freedom of speech, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), or as encompassed within the ninth amendment as an `additional fundamental rights . . . which exist ......
  • Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., No. 95-3055
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • February 16, 1996
    ...determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines."); see also, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 The statutory language of the ADEA simply does not evince an unmistakably clear intention to abro......
  • Mancuso v. Taft, No. 72-1180.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 20, 1973
    ...(6th Cir. 1972); see generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 444-446, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). Moreover, we note that under § 17-14-2, General Laws of Rhode Island, a candidate must himself be a q......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3066 cases
  • BJRL v. State of Utah, Civ. No. C86-324G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • January 28, 1987
    ...(1967) (statute preventing marriages between persons on basis of racial classification violates due process); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (485-86), 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1682), 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy); Pierce ......
  • Stull v. School Board of Western Beaver Jr.-Sr. HS, No. 71-1674.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 13, 1972
    ...added: "Whether this right is designated as within the `penumbras\' of the first amendment freedom of speech, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), or as encompassed within the ninth amendment as an `additional fundamental rights . . . which exist ......
  • Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., No. 95-3055
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • February 16, 1996
    ...determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines."); see also, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 The statutory language of the ADEA simply does not evince an unmistakably clear intention to abro......
  • Mancuso v. Taft, No. 72-1180.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 20, 1973
    ...(6th Cir. 1972); see generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 444-446, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). Moreover, we note that under § 17-14-2, General Laws of Rhode Island, a candidate must himself be a q......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Experts Believe Alito Draft Opinion will Affect Other Rights
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • May 9, 2022
    ...School of Law, noted that many rights we now enjoy rely on the same privacy interests which support Roe v. Wade. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) rests on that same privacy interest, which is not specifically identified in the Constitution. Griswold protects the right to use con......
22 books & journal articles
  • Police Pursuits: the Legal and Policy Implications of County of Sacramento V. Lewis
    • United States
    • Police Quarterly Nbr. 2-3, September 1999
    • September 1, 1999
    ...v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).Fontana, V. (1996). Municipal liability: Law & practice (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 Haggard v. City of Richmond, 200 S.E.2d 610 (Va. 1939).Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).Heider v. Clemons, 400 S.E.2d 190 (Va. 199......
  • Prisoners' Rights and the Rehnquist Court Era
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The Nbr. 87-4, December 2007
    • December 1, 2007
    ...you’re a liberal, you’d prefer Scalia.” Slate. Retrieved November 3, 2005, from http://www.slate.com/id/2129107/ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983).Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002).Hudson v. McMillian,......
  • POLITICAL TRUST, SOCIAL TRUST, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 36 Nbr. 2, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...372 U.S. 368 (1963) (adopting the "one person, one vote" standard for legislative districting under the Fourteenth Amendment). (89.) 381 U.S. 479 (90.) ELY, supra note 2, at 137. (91.) Id. at 137 (footnote omitted). (92.) Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Cl......
  • Prison Inmates’ Right to Hunger Strike
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 39-2, June 2014
    • June 1, 2014
    ...v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, 493 U.S. 411 (1990).Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Kanaboshi Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).In re Caulk, 480 A.2d 93 (N.H. 1984).In re Fattah, No. 3:08-MC-164, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51848 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT