Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold v. Connecticut,

case decided in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing a right to privacyprivacy, right of,
the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While a consensus supporting the right to privacy has emerged (all recently confirmed justices of the Supreme Court have affirmed their belief
..... Click the link for more information. in striking down a Connecticut ban on the sale of contraceptives. The Court, through Justice William O. DouglasDouglas, William Orville,
1898–1980, American jurist, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1939–75), b. Maine, Minn. He received his law degree from Columbia in 1925 and later was professor of law at Yale.
..... Click the link for more information. , found a "zone of privacy" created by several amendments to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing against governmental intrusion into the homes and lives of citizens. The Griswold decision was important in later cases, such as Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade,
case decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with Doe v. Bolton, this decision legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.
..... Click the link for more information. .

Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), was a landmark Supreme Court decision that recognized that a married couple has a right of privacy that cannot be infringed upon by a state law making it a crime to use contraceptives.

Two Connecticut statutes provided that any person who used, or gave information or assistance concerning the use of, contraceptives was subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both. Estelle T. Griswold, an executive with the state Planned Parenthood League, and a physician who worked at a league center were arrested for violating these laws, even though they gave such information to married couples.

They were convicted and fined $100 each. The state appellate courts upheld their convictions and they appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized that the appellants had standing to raise the issue of the constitutional rights of married couples since they had a professional relationship with such people.

Addressing the propriety of its review of such legislation, the Court reasoned that although it is loath to determine the need for state laws affecting social and economic conditions, these statutes directly affected sexual relations between a married couple and the role of a physician in the medical aspects of such a relationship. Such a relationship is protected from intrusion by the government under the theory of a right to privacy. This right, while not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, exists because it may be reasonably construed from certain amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and press implicitly create the right of freedom of association since one must be allowed to freely associate with others in order to fully enjoy these specific guarantees. The Third Amendment prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in a private home without the owner's consent is an implicit ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the owner's right to privacy. Both the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment self-incrimination Clause safeguard a person's privacy in his or her home and life against government demands. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumerated constitutional rights should not be interpreted as denying any other rights retained by the people.

The Court created the right of privacy from the penumbras of these specific rights, which it deemed created zones of privacy. The statutory regulation of a marital relationship by the state was an invasion of the constitutional right of a married couple to privacy in such a relationship, a relationship that historically American law has held sacred. The means by which the state chose to regulate contraceptives—by outlawing their use, rather than their sale and manufacture—was clearly unrelated to its goal and would detrimentally affect the marital relationship. The question of enforcement of such statutes also was roundly criticized since it would mandate government inquiry into "marital bedrooms."

Because of the invalidity of such laws, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the state trial and appellate courts and the convictions of the appellants.

Cross-references

"Griswold v. Connecticut" (Appendix, Primary Document); Husband and Wife; Penumbra.

单词	griswold v. connecticut
释义	Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut, case decided in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing a right to privacyprivacy, right of, the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While a consensus supporting the right to privacy has emerged (all recently confirmed justices of the Supreme Court have affirmed their belief ..... Click the link for more information. in striking down a Connecticut ban on the sale of contraceptives. The Court, through Justice William O. DouglasDouglas, William Orville, 1898–1980, American jurist, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1939–75), b. Maine, Minn. He received his law degree from Columbia in 1925 and later was professor of law at Yale. ..... Click the link for more information. , found a "zone of privacy" created by several amendments to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing against governmental intrusion into the homes and lives of citizens. The Griswold decision was important in later cases, such as Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade, case decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with Doe v. Bolton, this decision legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. ..... Click the link for more information. . Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), was a landmark Supreme Court decision that recognized that a married couple has a right of privacy that cannot be infringed upon by a state law making it a crime to use contraceptives. Two Connecticut statutes provided that any person who used, or gave information or assistance concerning the use of, contraceptives was subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both. Estelle T. Griswold, an executive with the state Planned Parenthood League, and a physician who worked at a league center were arrested for violating these laws, even though they gave such information to married couples. They were convicted and fined $100 each. The state appellate courts upheld their convictions and they appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized that the appellants had standing to raise the issue of the constitutional rights of married couples since they had a professional relationship with such people. Addressing the propriety of its review of such legislation, the Court reasoned that although it is loath to determine the need for state laws affecting social and economic conditions, these statutes directly affected sexual relations between a married couple and the role of a physician in the medical aspects of such a relationship. Such a relationship is protected from intrusion by the government under the theory of a right to privacy. This right, while not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, exists because it may be reasonably construed from certain amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and press implicitly create the right of freedom of association since one must be allowed to freely associate with others in order to fully enjoy these specific guarantees. The Third Amendment prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in a private home without the owner's consent is an implicit ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the owner's right to privacy. Both the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment self-incrimination Clause safeguard a person's privacy in his or her home and life against government demands. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumerated constitutional rights should not be interpreted as denying any other rights retained by the people. The Court created the right of privacy from the penumbras of these specific rights, which it deemed created zones of privacy. The statutory regulation of a marital relationship by the state was an invasion of the constitutional right of a married couple to privacy in such a relationship, a relationship that historically American law has held sacred. The means by which the state chose to regulate contraceptives—by outlawing their use, rather than their sale and manufacture—was clearly unrelated to its goal and would detrimentally affect the marital relationship. The question of enforcement of such statutes also was roundly criticized since it would mandate government inquiry into "marital bedrooms." Because of the invalidity of such laws, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the state trial and appellate courts and the convictions of the appellants. Further readings Yeh, Jessica I., and Sindy S. Chen. 2002. "Contraception." Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 3 (spring): 191–209. Cross-references "Griswold v. Connecticut" (Appendix, Primary Document); Husband and Wife; Penumbra.
随便看	gitalong gitalov, aleksandr gitalov, aleksandr vasilevich gitam gitan gitana gitanas gitane gitano gitanos gitap gitc gitca gitch gitchee gumee gitche gumee gitchigume gitchner mobile system gitcnt gitcs gitd gite gitec gitega gitei

Griswold v. Connecticut