Eisenstadt v. Baird

E126159

United States Supreme Court case landmark decision

Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Eisenstadt v. Baird canonical	3
Eisenstadt, Sheriff v. Baird	1

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
arguedDate	1971-11-17 ⓘ
citation	405 U.S. 438 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Potter Stewart ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedYear	1972 ⓘ
decisionDate	1972-03-22 ⓘ
decisionType	constitutional law decision ⓘ
dissentBy	Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
fullName	Eisenstadt v. Baird self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Eisenstadt, Sheriff v. Baird
holding	A Massachusetts law prohibiting distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ⓘ The right of privacy in matters of contraception extends to unmarried individuals. ⓘ
impact	expanded constitutional protection for individual privacy beyond the marital relationship ⓘ extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals in the United States ⓘ strengthened equal protection analysis of laws discriminating between married and unmarried persons ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Byron R. White ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ Warren E. Burger ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
keyQuote	If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. ⓘ
legalIssue	Equal Protection Clause ⓘ contraception ⓘ right to privacy ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
originatingStateLaw	Massachusetts ⓘ
overturnedLaw	Massachusetts statute restricting distribution of contraceptives to married persons and to registered physicians and pharmacists ⓘ
page	438 ⓘ
petitioner	Thomas S. Eisenstadt ⓘ
rearguedDate	1972-01-12 ⓘ
relatedAreaOfLaw	equal protection jurisprudence ⓘ reproductive rights ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ
relatedCase	Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ Roe v. Wade ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	William Baird NERFINISHED ⓘ
subjectMatter	criminal prosecution for giving away contraceptives ⓘ distribution of contraceptives ⓘ
subsequentCitationIn	Carey v. Population Services International ⓘ Roe v. Wade ⓘ
volume	405 ⓘ

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

William J. Brennan Jr. → notableWork → Eisenstadt v. Baird ⓘ

Griswold v. Connecticut → impactOnLaterCase → Eisenstadt v. Baird ⓘ

Eisenstadt v. Baird → fullName → Eisenstadt v. Baird self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Eisenstadt, Sheriff v. Baird

Carey v. Population Services International → relatedToPrecedent → Eisenstadt v. Baird ⓘ