Mr. Beat presents.... Supreme Court Briefs
New Haven, Connecticut November 1961
Griswold. No, not THAT Griswold. Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton open a clinic where they
give advice and resources to married couples in order to help them avoid getting pregnant. They
also prescribed contraceptives, or birth control, for married women. Well this got them in trouble.
Local authorities arrested them for breaking a law that prohibited anyone from using “any drug,
medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing
conception.” Yep, Connecticut straight up banned using birth control. With
the help of P.T. Barnum apparently, the state passed the law way back in 1879.
Well Griswold and Buxton, as well as many others, thought the law banning birth control was wrong.
After they were found guilty for breaking it and fined $100
each, they appealed to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court. Griswold and Buxton
argued that banning birth control went against the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Well the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court disagreed,
and upheld their conviction, so Griswold and Buxton appealed again,
this time to the Connecticut Supreme Court, who...uh...yeah...also
upheld it. So Griswold and Buxton appealed again, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on March 29 and 30, 1965. The lawyer representing
Griswold and Buxton was Catherine Roraback, who claimed that the birth control ban violated the
right to marital privacy guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Now, the word “privacy” does not appear
anywhere in the Constitution. However, there was that sneaky Ninth Amendment, which essentially
said that there were other rights we all had not specifically listed in the Constitution.
But throughout American history nobody seemed to give a crap about the Ninth Amendment.
Or did they? Well, on June 7, 1965, the Court announced they had sided with Griswold.
It was 7-2. And guess what? They brought up the Ninth Amendment. They also brought up
that the right to privacy was inherent in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments,
and said the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment should be applied to incorporate
Bill of Rights protections to the states. Therefore, that Connecticut law banning
birth control was unconstitutional. Again, “privacy” is not explicitly listed in the
Constitution. However, it’s one on which several other rights, including expression for example,
depend. Also, the Court concluded that privacy specifically within
marriage was a personal zone that should totally be off limits to the government
Justice William Douglas wrote the opinion. “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.”
The two dissenting justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart just thought that
finding privacy in the Constitution was too loose of an interpretation.
Regardless, Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark case that basically gave
Americans the right to privacy. So many cases afterward, including the more famous case Roe v.
Wade, cited Griswold afterward as justification to expand or defend
privacy. It’s the reason why what goes on in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom,
and marked a big shift away from more traditional views on birth control.
And remember, today privacy is constantly under threat due to technology and mass surveillance,
so it’s important to remember just how relevant this case still is.
I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
My friend Matt Baker has a company called Useful Charts, and he sells these very.....useful charts.
And I hang them up in my classroom. They are terrific.
Here's a European Royal Family Tree. Here's a Timeline of U.S. History. So if you're a history teacher, which you probably are watching this
you can hang them up in your classroom. Or, if you're a history dork, you can just put them up in your bedroom. Shannon: Um, nu-uh. We're not putting that in here. No, nuh-uh.
If you want to buy one of these wonderful posters
check out the description of this video for a link. These charts are just so useful.
Matt from Usefulcharts has just released a new video at the same time as this one about the Vice President Charles Curtis. over on his channel which is called, you guessed it, Useful Charts.
Griswold v. Connecticut. That’s a pretty freaking important case right there. So which Supreme Court case
should I cover for this series next? Let me know down below, and in case you didn’t know,
I have 57 other episodes of this series, fo sho. Check out the entire playlist, no?
Yes, please, thanks for watching the show. Oh hey now I gotta go.