Griswold v. Connecticut

E92464

United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case landmark case

Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized a constitutional right to marital privacy and struck down a state ban on contraceptive use by married couples.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Griswold v. Connecticut canonical	8
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)	1

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional law ⓘ privacy law ⓘ reproductive rights law ⓘ
category	United States privacy case law ⓘ United States reproductive rights case law ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtTime	Earl Warren ⓘ
citation	381 U.S. 479 ⓘ
constitutionalBasis	zones of privacy created by specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ surface form: Fifth Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ surface form: First Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ surface form: Fourth Amendment Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ surface form: Ninth Amendment Third Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ surface form: Third Amendment
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1965-06-07 ⓘ
decisionType	judicial review of state statute ⓘ
defendant	Connecticut ⓘ surface form: State of Connecticut
doctrineDeveloped	penumbras and emanations theory of privacy rights ⓘ
fullName	Griswold v. Connecticut self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
holding	A Connecticut statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples is unconstitutional. ⓘ The Constitution protects a right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception use by married couples. ⓘ
impactOnLaterCase	Carey v. Population Services International ⓘ Eisenstadt v. Baird ⓘ Lawrence v. Texas (in part) ⓘ surface form: Lawrence v. Texas Roe v. Wade ⓘ
legalIssue	contraception ⓘ marital privacy ⓘ right to privacy ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ unenumerated rights ⓘ
lowerCourt	Connecticut Supreme Court ⓘ surface form: Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
majorityOpinionBy	William O. Douglas ⓘ
plaintiff	C. Lee Buxton ⓘ Estelle T. Griswold ⓘ
plaintiffRole	Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut ⓘ Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut ⓘ
recognizedRight	constitutional right to marital privacy ⓘ privacy in marital relations ⓘ
result	Connecticut contraception ban for married couples struck down ⓘ
stateInvolved	Connecticut ⓘ
statuteChallenged	Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives ⓘ
subjectMatter	contraceptive counseling and use by married couples ⓘ
vote	7-2 ⓘ
yearDecided	1965 ⓘ

Referenced by (9)

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

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution → citedIn → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ

91-902 → relatedPrecedent → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ

Griswold v. Connecticut → fullName → Griswold v. Connecticut self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

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

Warren Court era → notableCase → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ

Estelle T. Griswold → notableWork → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ

Estelle T. Griswold → participantIn → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ

Estelle T. Griswold → legalCase → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ

Carey v. Population Services International → relatedToPrecedent → Griswold v. Connecticut ⓘ