*
*
Search:
*
Check local listings
*
*
*
*
Explore through topicThe Court and DemocracyLaw, strength & PersonalityThe first Hundred YearsCapitalism and Conflict broadening Civil RightsThe Future of the Court
*
*
*



You are watching: Some people consider griswold v. connecticut to be an example of judicial activism because it

*
*
*
*
*

*
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court established a constitutionally protected right to privacy, i beg your pardon the court reasoned prohibited claims from denying birth control to married couples. Above, a male protests exterior a to plan Parenthood clinic in new Haven, Connecticut. Reproduction courtesy of Corbis Images
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
*
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the can be fried Court ruled that a state"s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the ideal to marital privacy. The case came to a Connecticut regulation that criminalized the encourage or usage of birth control. The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any kind of drug, medicinal post or instrument because that the purposes of avoiding conception shall it is in fined not much less than fourty dollars or imprisoned not much less than sixty days." The regulation further listed that "any human who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any type of offense may be prosecuted and punished together if he to be the principle offender." Estelle Griswold, the executive, management director of planned Parenthood organization of Connecticut, and also Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale clinical School, to be arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They to be fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appealed come the can be fried Court of Errors that Connecticut, claiming that the regulation violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and also Griswold and Buxton appealed come the U.S. Supreme Court, i beg your pardon reviewed the case in 1965. The can be fried Court, in a 7-2 decision created by Justice william O. Douglas, ruled the the regulation violated the "right come marital privacy" and also could not be enforced versus married people. Justice Douglas completed that the invoice of Right"s particular guarantees have "penumbras," produced by "emanations from these assures that assist give castle life and also opinion." In various other words, the "spirit" the the very first Amendment (free speech), third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), fourth Amendment (freedom native searches and also seizures), fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and also Ninth amendment (other rights), as applied versus the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed. Further, this ideal to privacy is "fundamental" as soon as it comes to the action of married couples, since it "is of together a character that it cannot be denied without violating those an essential principles the liberty and also justice which lie in ~ the base of our civil and political institutions." because a married couple"s usage of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut have to prove come the Court that its regulation is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to get rid of that appropriate (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Due to the fact that Connecticut failed to prove this, the legislation was struck under as applied. Other justices, when agreeing the marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut legislation should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas regarding where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, righteousness Arthur Goldberg suggested that the 9th Amendment, which says that the invoice of civil liberties does no exhaust all the rights included by the people, enables the Court to discover the "fundamental appropriate to marital privacy" without having actually to ground the in a particular constitutional amendment. In an additional concurrence, Justice man Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental best to marital privacy" exist only because marital privacy has actually traditionally been defended by American society. Finally, in yet one more concurrence, justice Byron White suggested that a an essential right come marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due procedure Clause, and also is safeguarded by the Fourteenth Amendment versus the states.Yet, because that all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed the the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive." In West coastline Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had actually rejected the idea that the constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects specific activities from government interference that are not clearly mentioned in the invoice of Rights. In Griswold, however, the ruled the "substantive rights" carry out exist in non-economic locations like "the ideal to privacy," even if they perform not in economic tasks like the right to contract. End the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right come privacy" past the marital bedroom, ruling that the state might not half the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird <1972>), and also that the state might not ban most abortions (Roe v. Go <1973>).
*
AUTHOR"S BIO
*
Alex McBride is a third year law student in ~ Tulane law School in NewOrleans. The is articles editor ~ above the TULANE legislation REVIEW and the 2005recipient of the beam Forrester compensation in constitutional Law. In 2007, Alexwill be clerking v Judge Susan Braden on the United claims Court ofFederal insurance claims in Washington.
*
*



See more: Why Do Ferns Not Grow As Tall As Gymnosperms And Angiosperms?

Published in December 2006.THE can be fried COURT is a production of stillproud.org/WNET brand-new York.© 2007 educational Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.Terms of usage | PBS Privacy Policy