Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Privacy Rights in the Digital Age

Griswold v. State of Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

by Melissa A. Gill

A 7–2 ruling, with the majority opinion written by Justice William Douglas, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not restrict married couples from using contraception. This was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court recognized there was a right to privacy. This was considered a new right at the time, and the ruling set the groundwork for subsequent cases like Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

This case centers on the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879. This law provided that “[a]ny person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.” In addition, it provided that “[a]ny person who assists, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.” In general, the Comstock Law was a federal act passed in 1873 that criminalized the usage of items such as erotica, contraceptives, sex toys, and anything else that might be considered obscene or immoral. The law was named after its leading proponent, Anthony Comstock, whose ideas of what were obscene were quite broad. In fact, some anatomy textbooks were prohibited from being sent to medical students under this act.

Historically, physicians tended to avoid publishing materials on birth control methods. They might advise married patients, but the topic was largely taboo and mostly illegal. The Connecticut Birth Control League, which would eventually develop Planned Parenthood clinics, sought to challenge these laws. Over the years, many challenges were made and failed, largely due to technical grounds such as standing. These cases focused on using the birth control pill for contraceptive use rather than health-related matters because, in 1918, Margaret Sanger, an early advocate for birth control, was successful in establishing a doctor's right to promote, discuss, or provide contraceptives for the use of preventing and curing illness and disease.

In 1961, Estelle Griswold, who was the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and C. Lee Buxton, who was a licensed physician and professor at the Yale Medical School and also served as medical director for the league at its center in New Haven, sought to challenge the law. They opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, and Griswold and Buxton gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married couples on preventing conception. Typically, they would examine the wife and prescribe the best contraception device or material. Shortly after the clinic opened, Griswold and Buxton were arrested and found guilty as accessories under the Comstock Act, and were both fined $100.

Unlike prior cases, the Court established that here there was standing and, specifically, that the appellants had standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship. This was a significant change from prior challenges. The Court also felt that this statute presented questions under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court began its opinion by explaining that many things are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but are nonetheless protected: “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.” For example, the Court explained that, logically, the First Amendment's right to free speech not only protects the right to utter or print speech but also, by extension, the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to inquire, the right to freedom of thought, the right to teach, and the right to read.

Because of this, the Court reasoned that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a “zone of privacy” and that this statute violated that zone. The Court focused on the use and advice, rather than the manufacture, asking, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” The Court focused on the idea of marriage being “intimate to the degree of being sacred” and older than the Bill of Rights.

This was significant because the Court was stating that, although the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy, it is implicit in various amendments, including the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth, as well as the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court defined a right to privacy as protection from governmental intrusion.

Justice Goldberg and Chief Justice Brennan concurred, stressing the importance of the Ninth Amendment, and stating that “the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights.” The Ninth Amendment specifically states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Justice Hugo Black and Justice Potter Stewart dissented. Justice Black specifically argued that the Constitution does not mention or provide for a right to privacy and also critiqued the majority opinion interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

While Griswold focused much of the opinion on married couples, the right was later extended to all persons in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). The logic in Eisenstadt was that it would be a violation of the equal protection clause to extend the right of privacy only to married couples.

Griswold's legacy is significant because it paved the way for cases such as Roe v. Wade, which extended the right of privacy to abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which extended the right of privacy to homosexual acts. These cases and more extend the penumbra of privacy to well beyond birth control. The importance of Griswold v. Connecticut for women cannot be underestimated because the case is conventionally understood to have secured crucial liberty rights for women on the most intimate of matters.

Further Reading

1 

Bailey, Martha J. “‘Momma's Got the Pill’: How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut Shaped U.S. Childbearing.” American Economic Review 100, no. 1 (2010): 98–129.

2 

Franklin, Cary. “Griswold and the Public Dimension of the Right to Privacy.” Yale Law Journal Forum 124, 332.

3 

Garrow, David J. “Human Rights Hero: The Legal Legacy of Griswold v. Connecticut.” Human Rights (2011): 26–25.

4 

Johnson, John W. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy. University Press of Kansas, 2005.

5 

Siegel, Neil S., and Reva B. Siegel. Contraception as a Sex Equality Right. Yale Law Journal Forum 124, 349.

See also: Constitutional law; Douglas, William Orville; Lawrence v. Texas; Privacy Laws, State; Privacy Laws, Federal; The Right to Privacy

Citation Types

MLA 9th
Gill, Melissa A. "Griswold V. State Of Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)." Privacy Rights in the Digital Age, edited by Christopher T. Anglim & JD, Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=PRDA_0106.
APA 7th
Gill, M. A. (2016). Griswold v. State of Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In C. Anglim & JD (Ed.), Privacy Rights in the Digital Age. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Gill, Melissa A. "Griswold V. State Of Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)." Edited by Christopher T. Anglim & JD. Privacy Rights in the Digital Age. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2016. Accessed May 30, 2026. online.salempress.com.