Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Griswold v. Connecticut

Supreme Court of the United States · 1965 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawright to privacysubstantive due processpenumbrascontraceptionmarital privacyfundamental rightsFourteenth Amendment

Facts

Connecticut had a birth-control law that forbade the use of contraceptive devices by married persons. The statute operated in the area of the marital relation and the marital home, which the opinion describes as a particularly important and sensitive sphere of privacy. The State defended the law in part as related to discouraging extramarital relations. Petitioners were convicted under that law, and those convictions came before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether Connecticut may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, criminally prohibit married persons from using birth-control devices. More specifically, the question is whether the Constitution protects a fundamental right of privacy in marriage even though that right is not expressly named in the text.

Rule

The liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments includes fundamental personal rights not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments. In determining whether a right is fundamental, courts must look to the traditions and collective conscience of the people and ask whether the right is so rooted there as to be ranked fundamental and whether denying it would violate fundamental principles of liberty and justice. When a state law significantly encroaches on such a fundamental personal liberty, the State may prevail only by showing a subordinating interest that is compelling, and the law must be necessary and precisely tailored rather than merely rationally related to a permissible state purpose.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Utah makes it a misdemeanor for married couples to use any medication intended to prevent conception. After Nora and Eli Benton are fined in Salt Lake City, the state argues the Constitution protects only rights expressly named in the text and contains no explicit reference to contraceptive use or marital privacy.

Under the majority opinion’s approach, what is the strongest constitutional objection to the statute?

Explanation. The opinion rejects the view that constitutional liberty is confined to rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. It treats marital privacy as a fundamental personal right protected through the Fourteenth Amendment, with the Ninth Amendment serving as support for the proposition that enumerated rights are not exhaustive. The Ninth Amendment is not treated as an independent source of enforceable rights, and the opinion expressly disclaims total incorporation of the first eight amendments.