InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Griswold et al. v. Connecticut

The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control."

381 U.S. 479 · No. 496 · 1964 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 7, 1965 · argued Mar 29, 1965

Privacy · Privacy

Landmark · Birth control and abortionStruck down a state law

Majority opinion: William Douglas

The voteMajorityDissent

7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Reversed. Griswold et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, and its own ruling ends the case.

Griswold et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".

Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "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." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion to clarify that the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution shows the framers' view that there are fundamental rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion arguing that privacy is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while Justice Byron White argued that Connecticut's law failed the rational basis standard.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1964 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasWarrenBrennanBlackGoldbergWhiteClarkStewartHarlan

Majority(7)

Dissent(2)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Griswold et al.Health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor
Respondent
ConnecticutState (Connecticut)
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 7, 1965DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed. Griswold et al. won.
  2. Mar 29, 1965ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Connecticut trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

16 other argued cases since 1946 on privacy, newest first.

  1. United States, Petitioner v. James X. Bormes568 U.S. 6Nov 13, 2012 · 568 U.S. 6Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  2. Federal Aviation Administration, et al., Petitioners v. Stanmore Cawthon Cooper566 U.S. 284Mar 28, 2012 · 566 U.S. 284Privacy5–36–3 band

  3. General Dynamics Corporation, Petitioner, v. United States563 U.S. 478May 23, 2011 · 563 U.S. 478Privacy9–0Unanimous band
  4. Buck Doe v. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor540 U.S. 614Feb 24, 2004 · 540 U.S. 614Privacy6–36–3 band

  5. John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. TexasLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity539 U.S. 558Jun 26, 2003 · 539 U.S. 558Privacy6–36–3 band

  6. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. v. Lindsay Earls et al.Landmark · Fourth Amendment rights536 U.S. 822Jun 27, 2002 · 536 U.S. 822Privacy5–45–4 band

  7. Gonzaga University and Roberta S. League v. John Doe536 U.S. 273Jun 20, 2002 · 536 U.S. 273Privacy7–27–2 band

  8. Owasso Independent School District No. I-011, aka Owasso Public Schools, et al. v. Kristja J. Falvo, Parent and Next Friend of Her Minor Children, Elizabeth Pletan, Philip Pletan, and Erica Pletan534 U.S. 426Feb 19, 2002 · 534 U.S. 426Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  9. Jenifer Troxel, et vir v. Tommie Granville530 U.S. 57Jun 5, 2000 · 530 U.S. 57Privacy6–36–3 band

  10. Walker L. Chandler, et al. v. Zell D. Miller, Governor of Georgia, et al.520 U.S. 305Apr 15, 1997 · 520 U.S. 305Privacy8–18–1 band
  11. Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Richard G. Evans et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity517 U.S. 620May 20, 1996 · 517 U.S. 620Privacy6–36–3 band

  12. Vernonia School District 47j v. Wayne Acton, et ux., etc.Landmark · Fourth Amendment rights515 U.S. 646Jun 26, 1995 · 515 U.S. 646Privacy6–36–3 band

  13. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity478 U.S. 186Jun 30, 1986 · 478 U.S. 186Privacy5–45–4 band

  14. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., et al.435 U.S. 589Apr 18, 1978 · 435 U.S. 589Privacy5–45–4 band
  15. Whalen, Commissioner of Health of New York v. Roe et al.429 U.S. 589Feb 22, 1977 · 429 U.S. 589Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  16. Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia et al. v. Pollak et al.343 U.S. 451May 26, 1952 · 343 U.S. 451Privacy6–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.