Legal Definitions - Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established a fundamental, albeit unwritten, right to privacy under the Constitution. The case challenged a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of any form of contraception, even by married couples. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this law was unconstitutional because it violated a married couple's right to privacy.

The Court's majority opinion, written by Justice William Douglas, reasoned that while the Constitution does not explicitly mention a "right to privacy," such a right is implied by the "penumbras" (or shadows) and "emanations" (or radiations) of other specific constitutional amendments. These include protections found in the First Amendment (freedom of association), Third Amendment (prohibiting quartering of soldiers), Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (reserving unenumerated rights to the people). By broadly interpreting these existing protections, the Court concluded that a zone of privacy, particularly concerning intimate marital decisions, is constitutionally protected. This ruling was pivotal in laying the groundwork for future cases that expanded the right to privacy to other areas, such as access to contraception for unmarried individuals, abortion rights, and LGBTQ+ rights.

Here are some examples illustrating the principle established in Griswold v. Connecticut:

• Medical Autonomy and Personal Health Choices: Imagine a state legislature passes a law requiring all adult citizens to submit to a specific, non-emergency genetic screening test, with the results stored in a government database accessible to various state agencies, regardless of individual consent or medical necessity. This law could be challenged under the principles of privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut. The argument would be that individuals have an inferred constitutional right to make private medical decisions and control their personal health information, free from unwarranted government intrusion, much like married couples have a right to make private decisions about contraception.

• Parental Rights in Education: Consider a scenario where a state enacts a law mandating that all children must attend public schools and explicitly forbids parents from choosing private schooling or homeschooling options, even if the parents can demonstrate they are providing an adequate education. This law could be challenged by parents asserting their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. While not directly about contraception, this situation touches upon the broader concept of unenumerated parental rights and family autonomy that the Court considered when inferring the right to privacy in Griswold, drawing parallels to earlier cases like Meyer v. Nebraska which recognized a parental right to choose their children's education.

• Intimate Relationships and Lifestyle Choices: Suppose a local municipality passes an ordinance that attempts to dictate the specific types of consensual intimate relationships adults can have within the privacy of their own homes, even if these relationships are not illegal, harmful, or a public nuisance. For instance, an ordinance might try to ban certain cohabitation arrangements for unmarried adults. Such a law would likely face legal challenges based on the inferred right to privacy. The reasoning would be that individuals have a constitutional right to make personal decisions about their intimate relationships and private living arrangements, similar to how Griswold protected the private decisions of married couples regarding family planning.