Changes

[[Appellant]] Griswold was the Executive Director of the [[Planned Parenthood]] League of Connecticut. [[Appellant]] Buxton was 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. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"<ref>381 U.S. 479, 480</ref> and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" <ref>ibid</ref> to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.

[[Appellant]] Griswold was the Executive Director of the [[Planned Parenthood]] League of Connecticut. [[Appellant]] Buxton was 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. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"<ref>381 U.S. 479, 480</ref> and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" <ref>ibid</ref> to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.

The [[opinion of the court]] was delivered by Justice [[William Douglas]], and, after finding that the appellants had [[standing]] to invoke the [[constitutional rights]] of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the [[penumbra]] (shadow) emanating from the [[First Amendment]], [[Third Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]] and [[Fifth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which created a "[[zone of privacy]]" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] ('''367 U.S. 643'''), a case involving [[search warrant]] issues, and ''Griswold'' is often considered by lawyers to be a [[legal progeny]] of ''Mapp'', in the same way that ''Roe'' is a progeny of ''Griswold''.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice [[William Douglas]], and, after finding that the appellants had [[standing]] to invoke the [[constitutional rights]] of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the [[penumbra]] (shadow) emanating from the [[First Amendment]], [[Third Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]] and [[Fifth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which created a "[[zone of privacy]]" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] ('''367 U.S. 643'''), a case involving [[search warrant]] issues, and ''Griswold'' is often considered by lawyers to be a [[legal progeny]] of ''Mapp'', in the same way that ''Roe'' is a progeny of ''Griswold''.

Justices [[Black]] and [[Stewart]] dissented.

Justices [[Hugo Black|Black]] and [[Potter Stewart|Stewart]] dissented.

==References==

==References==

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZS.html Full text of all opinions]

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZS.html Full text of all opinions]

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[Category:Judicial Activism]]

[[Category:Judicial Activism]]