Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

81 US 479
Griswold v. Connecticut
DOUGLAS, J.

Summarized by Sam Andales

Appellant Griswold and Buxton are the executive director and medical director,
respectively, of Planned Parenthood League. They gave advice to married persons on
how to prevent conception and prescribed the best contraceptive device for the wife’s
use. They were subsequently charged and convicted as accessories under a
Connecticut statute which made the use of contraceptives a criminal offense. The
issues in this case are (1) whether or not the appellants have standing to raise the
constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional
relationship and (2) whether or not the statute in forbidding the use of contraceptives
violated the right of marital privacy. The Court held that the appellants had standing as
accessories to attack the constitutionality of the law which they are charge with. Also,
while the right of privacy is not expressly protected under the Constitution, specific
guarantees in the Bill of Rights (particularly the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth
Amendment) created penumbras, or zones which establish the right to privacy in marital
relations. A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedom. As such, this
law cannot stand, because in forbidding the use of contraceptives, it seeks to achieve
its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Estelle Griswold - Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League (PPL) of
Connecticut
Dr. C. Lee Buxton - Medical Director for PPL at its Centre in New Haven

FACTS
1. Griswold and Buxton (appellants) as executive and medical directors of PPL,
gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the
means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the
best contraceptive devise for her use. Fees were usually charged, although
some couple were serviced free.
2. Under the General Statutes of Connecticut, the use of contraceptives is a
criminal offense. Particularly, Sec. 53-32 provides:
“Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the
purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars

!1
 or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both
fined and imprisoned.
Section 54-196 provides:

“Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires, or commands
another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he
were the principal offender.”
3. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each, against
the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth
Amendment (Due Process Clause). The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court
and Court of Errors affirmed the judgment.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N the appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the
married people with whom they had a professional relationship - YES
a. As accessories, they should have standing to attack the
constitutionality of the law with which they are charged with assisting a
crime.
2. W/N the statute in forbidding the use of contraceptives violated the right
of marital privacy- YES
a. The law operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife
and their physician’s role in one aspect of that relation.
b. The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution
nor in the Bill of Rights.
i. While certain rights have not been expressly stated, the First
Amendment has been construed to include certain of those
rights. By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the right educate one’s
child as one chooses is made applicable by the force of the First
and Fourteenth Amendment. By Meyer v. Nebraska, the same
dignity is given the right to study the German language.
ii. In various cases, it was held that the freedom of speech and
press includes not only the right to utter and print, but also the
right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read, and
freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom to teach.
Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would not be
secured.
iii. In NAACP v. Alabama, the “freedom to associate and privacy in
one’s associations” was protected, noting that freedom of
association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure
of membership lists of a constitutional valid association was

!2
 declared invalid for entailing a likelihood of substantial restraint
upon the exercise of right to freedom of association.
iv. In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where
privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. Similarly,
forms of association have also been protected. The right of
association is a form of expression of opinion and while it is not
expressly included in the First Amendment, it is necessary in
making the express guaranties fully meaningful.
c. As seen in the cases mentioned, specific guarantees in the Bill of
Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those
guarantees that help give it life and substance.
d. Zones of privacy are created by the various guaranties contained
in the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment right of
association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering of
soldiers in any time of peace without the owner’s consent, the Fourth
Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the
Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
i. The present case concerns a relationship which is within the
zones of privacy created by the constitutional guarantees.
ii. A governmental purpose to control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved
by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedom. As such, this law cannot
stand, because in forbidding the use of contraceptives, it seeks
to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive
impact upon that relationship.
iii. 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.
iv. This right of privacy is older than the Bill of Rights - older than
our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is
an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a
harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not
commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as
noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Reversed.

!3
DOCTRINE
Standing
Appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of married people with
whom they had a professional relationship. As accessories, they should have
standing to attack the constitutionality of the law with which they are charged with
assisting a crime.

Right to privacy
Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations
from those guarantees that help give it life and substance. Various guarantees
create zones of privacy.

A governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to

state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedom.

!4