BUL4602 Fall-2011 Lecture 11 , Reading 3

BUL4602 Fall-2011 Lecture 11 , Reading 3 - 381 U.S. 479, 85...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 Supreme Court of the United States Estelle T. GRISWOLD et al. Appellants, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT. No. 496. Argued March 29, 1965. Decided June 7, 1965. Defendants were convicted of violating the Connecticut birth control law. The Circuit Court in the Sixth Circuit, Connecticut, rendered judgments, and the defendants appealed. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed, and defendants appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479, affirmed, and the defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Douglas, held that the Connecticut law forbidding use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy. Reversed. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Stewart dissented. + **1679 *479 Thomas I. Emerson, New Haven, Conn., for appellants. Joseph B. Clark, New Haven, Conn., for appellee. *480 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant Griswold is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven-a center open and operating from November 1 to November 10, 1961, when appellants were arrested. They gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free. The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are ss 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). The former provides: ‘Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.’ Section 54-196 provides: ‘Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.’ The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each, against the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed that judgment. 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479. We noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 328, 13 L.Ed.2d 339.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
*481 [1] We think that appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603, is different, for there the plaintiff seeking to represent others asked for a declaratory judgment. In that situation we thought that the requirements of standing should be strict, lest the standards of ‘case or controversy’ in Article
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/23/2011 for the course BUL 4602 taught by Professor Johnson during the Spring '11 term at W. Florida.

Page1 / 25

BUL4602 Fall-2011 Lecture 11 , Reading 3 - 381 U.S. 479, 85...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online