Apus Court Cases: Griswold V Connecticut

The Carrie Chapman Catt Group

The Political Concerns of WE the People:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Volume 1, Issue 1

The Case By Christine Geddes On March 29, 1965 the embittered battle between Estelle Griswold (and her colleague C. Lee Buxton) and the State of Connecticut recommenced. This legal battle worked its way to the top, to the Supreme Court of the United States, the ultimate law of the land. Joseph B. Clark argued the case for the appellee, and Thomas I. Emerson argued the case for the appellants. The citation for this case was 381 U.S. 479 (1965); 85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282. The docket number was 496.The previous actions taken before this case reached the Supreme Court were that the defendants were convicted, the Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit 12-62 affirmed and the Circuit Court Appellate Division 1-7-62 affirmed 200 A.2d 479 (Connecticut) in 1964. Finally on June 7, 1965 about 70 days later the case was decided. The Supreme Court favored Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton in a 7-2 vote. This landmark case set the precedent for many cases to come such as Roe v Wade.

April 6, 2006

Constitution Violated? By Gina Bello

To what extent has the state of Connecticut violated the United States Constitution? In recent commotion surrounding the Griswold v. Connecticut, one is forced to ponder the allegation. The state of Connecticut law prohibits the pre-

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/books /us/constitution/7small.GIF

vention of conception by the use of any drug or object by any person. Furthermore, the state of Connecticut stated that any person who aided with information or by other means the use of contraceptives was subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject

Estelle T. Griswold, whose job at the state Planned Parenthood League was to aid and inform married couples, was arrested and fine a hundred dollars for breaking the Connecticut law. Griswold appealed to the SuEstelle Griswold in front of New Haven Planned Parenthood Center preme Court, claiming that it was a viohttp://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ lation of the Fourftrials/conlaw/parenthood.jpg teenth Amendment (Constitution continued on page 2) which states:

GRISWOLD CONVICTED AFTER OPENING CLINIC By Cori Bogle NEW HAVEN Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton were arrested shortly after opening the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut in New Haven in 1961. Their crime: giving medical advice and prescribing contraceptives to married couples that seek the Planned

Parenthood for assistance. After their arrest, Griswold, Executive Director of this Connecticut branch, and Buxton, a physician and professor at the Yale School of Medicine, were tried, found guilty, and fined one hundred dollars each.

A Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception," spurred their arrest. Moreover, the law made it illegal to "assist, abet, counsel, cause, hire, or command another to commit any offense", and (Conviction continued on page 3)

V O LU ME 1 , ISSUE 1

T HE PO L I T I CAL C O NC E RNS OF WE T HE PEO PL E:

PAGE 2

The Judges Decide Griswold v. Connecticut T h e h i g h l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l c a s e o f G r i s w o l d v . C

By Debra Lee

The highly controversial case of Griswold v. Connecticut was decided June 7, 1965. The case revolved around the question of whether the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments to the Constitution implied the right to privacy. The final ruling on the case was 7 to 2, striking down the Connecticut law.

sons, including several court cases, from the government. Douglas conDouglas emphasizes the right to educludes that the privacy of marriage is cate one’s children in the manner that within the “zone of privacy” that the one chooses. This point is supported by Constitutional Amendments imply berulings in cases cause it is at least as noble as such as Pierce v. the institutions covered in Society of Sisters. previous cases. In addition to the Justice Black and right to education Justice Stewart are the two of choice, Douglas dissenting votes. They note also cites NAACP that nowhere in the ConstituJustice Douglas v. Alabama in tion is the right of privacy delivered the Majority which a penummentioned, although they conopinion which struck down bra is found atcede that several guarantees the Connecticut law and tached to the are listed. The constitutional affirmed the right to priFirst Amendprovisions are only to protect vacy. According to the ment. This privacy in certain areas at Justice, “We deal with Justice Hugo L. Black penumbra Justice William O. Douglas certain times and places a right of privacy older grants http://www.ocpd.state.ct.us/Content/Gi than the Bill of Rights.” http://www.rotaryhistoryfellowship.org/his protection deon/Right%20to%20Counsel.htm tory/famous/images/douglas.jpg Among the list of reaof privacy (Judges continued on page 3)

People Involved

by Khanh Vuong

Many people were involved in this case. Estelle Griswold (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Buxton (a physician and professor at the Yale School of Medicine) opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. The Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut”. They gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Con(Constitution continued from page 1)

to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

necticut law, which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each. The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. Griswold then appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States. Joseph B. Clark argued the cause for the appellee. Thomas Emerson argued the cause for the appellants.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Griswold furthermore stated that the Connecticut law concerning the prohibiting of contraceptives violates the marriage right of privacy, which is assured in the Bill of Rights. With that in consideration the Supreme Court upheld the

The chief justice of the case was Judge Earl Warren. Associate justices are Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Bryon White, Arthur Goldberg. Justice William Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he (People continued on page 3)

Constitution, stating that the Connecticut law interfered in the private sexual relations between married couples.

THE CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT GROUP

Carrie Chapman Catt http://www.betterworldheroes.com/portraits/c att.jpg

The Strachan Experience

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the past. (People continued from page 2)

criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law," but noted that it was nevertheless constitutional.

(Judges Continued from page 2)

with certain activities. The dissenters also claim that forcing federal and state laws to accept the ruling of the courts on matters of privacy may jeopardize the balance of powers. Black writes, “Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would…jeopardize the separation of governmental powers.” Black also claims that the Doctor standing trial directly violated the Connecticut law and cannot claim the right of freedom of speech. He considers the Doctor guilty because he gave counseling on which contraceptive to use and provided the couple with the contraceptive devices. The Warren Court http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/

Constitutionality of the Decision

(Conviction continued from page 1)

By Lisa Richards

the Planned Parenthood clearly violated this law. Although the statue was almost never enforced since its passing in 1879, some attempts were made to challenge the constitutionality of the law, but they all failed.

The main question in the case within the family and preventing of Griswold v. Connecticut is married couples from using contra“Does the ceptives goes against that basic Constitution protect the right of Constitutional right. In addition marital privacy and the ability the 4th Amendment proves the to use Court ruling contraceptives?” The ruling of was right because it ensures the Griswold v. Connecticut proves right of people to be secure in their that the homes. Finally, the 9th AmendSupreme Court believes that ment prevents the restriction of the Constitution defends a mar- personal ried couple’s liberties by the federal power. right to privacy and the use of The ruling of the Supreme Court to contraceptives. allow the use of contraceptives was First of all, the 1st Amendment a protects the right of association, right decision based on the Court’s which interpretation of the Constitution. makes the Connecticut law unGriswold v. Connecticut makes it constitutional by not allowing illegal to forbid the use of contramarried couples ceptives to express their opinions and do for married couples, which, based what they want in on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, their marriage. Also, and 9th Amendments the violate the rights of 3rd Amendment, married couples. The which disallows the ruling of this case prequartering of troops in vents the the home because violation of basic civil of a lack of privacy, liberties, which will also proves the Concontinue to change and necticut law to be affect the world for unconstitutional. This years to come. amendment alhttp://www.homeofheroes.com/ lows for privacy hallofheroes/1st_floor/birth/preamble_print.html

The first challenge was Tileston v. Ullman (1943), in which a doctor stated that banning contraceptives could threaten the lives of his patients. The second, Poe v. Ullman (1961), was brought to court by a doctor and his patients, but was again dismissed by the Supreme Court for not being ripe. Therefore, Griswold v. Connecticut was the first time the statue had ever received judicial review. The Poe case, however, was not a complete failure. Instead, Justice John Marshall Harlan II gave one of the most cited dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court. His argument stated that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution should be interpreted broadly. "The 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…it is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom form all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints," he said. Therefore, he stated that this Connecticut law violated the Constitution. Griswold and Buxton appealed this case to the Supreme Court on the same grounds as Poe, claiming that the statue violated the rights of married people to liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Federal Appeals Court as well as Connecticut's Supreme Court of Errors upheld their conviction. Their appeal was heard in 1965.