Today in Supreme Court History: June 7, 1965

6/7/1965: Griswold v. Connecticut is decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (decided June 7, 1965): Fourteenth Amendment violated by statute outlawing sale of contraceptives; right to privacy makes enumerated rights more secure

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (decided June 7, 1971): First Amendment protected immature jerkoff's right to wear "Fuck the Draft" jacket in courthouse (contrast this guy with the brave schoolchildren in Minersville v. Gobitis)

Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. --- (decided June 7, 2021): El Salvadoran who obtained Temporary Protected Status in 2001 due to conditions in his home country (devastasting earthquakes) but who entered this country illegally in 1997 was properly denied application for green card

Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar, 541 U.S. 1093 (decided June 7, 2004): in 2003 Republicans took over the state legislature and tried to redistrict despite it being done only the year before (it's supposed to be only once every ten years). This was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. Here we see Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissenting to the denial of cert, citing the Constitutional guarantee that each state have "a Republican Form of Government" (ha)

National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (decided June 7, 1920): rejected various procedural objections to the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment: the required vote of both Houses was two-thirds of the quorum, not of the total members; the resolution did not have to say that the Amendment was "necessary"; the Amendment does not depend on Commerce Clause restrictions but is an independent part of the Constitution; it is operative in the territories; etc.

Minn v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (decided June 7, 1993): during a stop and frisk, police officer was attracted to lump in man's pants and felt it up; it turned out to be cocaine, but he needed a warrant to do that because he already knew it wasn't a gun (let the jokes begin)

Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (decided June 7, 1912): state law requiring inspection of animal feed was valid exercise of police powers and did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause even though "incidentally affects interstate commerce"

Murphy v. California, 225 U.S. 623 (decided June 7, 1912): local ordinance forbidding pool halls did not violate Equal Protection of pool hall owner and was permissible use of police power despite lack of evidence that it was a corrupting influence, because they've got Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool

[DaivdBehar]

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (decided June 7, 1965): Fourteenth Amendment violated by statute outlawing sale of contraceptives; right to privacy makes enumerated rights more secure

I hope this conservative Court revives the Ninth Amendment, and really tries to stop our tyrannical government from micromanaging people's lives.

[not guilty]

How long will Griswold v. Connecticut remain good law? Some contraceptive methods, such as an IUD or Plan B, are wrongly believed to be abortifacients. (See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. 682, 691 (2014).) It is not far-fetched to envision a busybody state legislature pandering to that kind of ignorance and banning those contraceptive methods in the guise of restricting abortion rights. Inferior federal courts, being bound by Griswold, would be obliged to declare such a ban unconstitutional.

The reasoning of Justice Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, however, with its hostility to fundamental constitutional rights of privacy, personal autonomy and bodily integrity, would apply to overruling Griswold just as surely as it does to overruling Roe v. Wade.

[John F. Carr]

If I had to bet, I would say the Supreme Court will decline to take a case asking to overturn Griswold.

At the state level, if a lawmaker's mistress is on the pill the odds are good that she won't be producing any embarrassments.

[David Nieporent]

As a rough approximation, there is zero constituency for banning contraception. Nobody is overturning Griswold.

[John F. Carr]

I think there's a little bit of willingness to restrict access by minors lest contraceptives turn girls into sluts. But mostly I agree.

[F.D. Wolf]

Even in 1965, when Griswold was decided, only two states had contraception bans: Connecticut and Massachusetts.

That was due to Catholic influence, but nowadays, "Catholic politician" usually means "pro-abortion politician". See, e,g,, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi.

So, yes, there is no danger of a significant, much less majority, anti-contraception movement in any state in the foreseeable future.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, plenty of other low-hanging fruit before they come at Griswold. It's on the list, but down there. I expect school prayer, and then probably some free exercise exceptions to come first.

[The Turtle Dove]

The argument is worth a listen. Connecticut was clearly having a bad day.

Mr. D.