Griswold Vs Connecticut Case Study

Essay Part
Griswold v. Connecticut still stands as a precedent case U.S. legal jurisprudence history. In his opinion on the case, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Connecticut law prohibiting a person from using contraceptive devices was unconstitutional on grounds that it violated the “right of privacy” of an individual, protected by the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment. In many cases, Griswold has been unappreciated for what its decision accomplished; making the use and distribution of contraception legal under federal law and widely available throughout the nation. On the other hand, the decision only managed to do away with the antiquated and unenforced Comstock law, which, among other things, prohibited the use of contraception and other “obscenities.” Griswold still remains an important decision American jurisprudence history, but the Court’s final decision (specifically Justice Goldberg’s opinion) failed to specify what could and could not be included in the privacy clause of the Fourteen Amendment.
Griswold was decided in 1965, and the Court ruled 7-2 that Connecticut’s law banning contraception was unconstitutional. The Court’s decision might

Indeed, Estelle Griswold’s final decision of whether or not to use contraceptive devices was deemed a private matter. But why decide that Connecticut’s law banning contraception to be unconstitutional on grounds of privacy and, more specifically, why base it on the institution of marriage? Why not ban the law on grounds of Griswold’s individual rights instead? The answer to this question probably has to do with the historical context of the case; this was, after all, 1965 and the women’s liberation movement, as well as other civil rights movements, was barely catching on. This alone should serve to remind us that most of the Supreme Court decisions are mostly a product of the period when they were