Case Brief Griswold V. Connecticut

624 Words3 Pages
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning. These directors were claiming that the ruling that led to their conviction had violated the 14th Amendment, which states citizens’ rights to privacy and equal protections from the laws. Issue: Is there existence of a right in the Bill of Rights allowing married couples to use contraceptives to prevent conception? Decision: Yes. Reason: Implied rights listed by the court included the Fifth Amendment, which offers protection…show more content…
The fee was to support the campus’ extracurricular activities and other campus services. The fee was also used to fund a number of organizations within the university including; Registered Student Organization (RSO), International Socialist Organization, College Democrats and Republicans among others. In April, 1996, Scott Harold Southworth and two other law students the university’s Madison campus sued the university’s student fee system. They claimed that the students were being forced to go against their will as far as the right of free association, rights of free speech and the rights under the First Amendment are concerned. The Federal District Court made a ruling in favor of Southworth and team on November 29, 1996. The court ruled that the fee system was against the student’s rights of free speech and were forced to pay for speeches that they were not in agreement

More about Case Brief Griswold V. Connecticut

Open Document