Stuff You Missed in History Class: SYMHC Classics – Griswold v. Connecticut

Released on June 7, 2025 by iHeartPodcasts

Introduction: Commemorating a Pivotal Supreme Court Decision

In this landmark episode commemorating the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), hosts Holly Fry and Tracy V. Wilson delve deep into the case that not only overturned Connecticut's stringent anti-contraception laws but also laid the foundational groundwork for the right to privacy in marital relationships. This episode gains contemporary relevance in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which revisits and challenges many of the precedents set by Griswold.

Historical Context: The Rise of Anti-Obscenity Laws

[05:32] Holly Fry introduces the episode by highlighting the impact of Griswold v. Connecticut on existing anti-contraception laws.

Tracy V. Wilson expands on the legal backdrop, explaining that Griswold not only addressed contraception but also touched upon the broader concept of due process as enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:

"... this language in both of these amendments applies to persons, not just to citizens. Everyone has the right to due process, including immigrants, regardless of their immigration status." [02:30]

Anthony Comstock and the Comstock Act: From Morality to Law

[05:32] The discussion pivots to Anthony Comstock, a fervent advocate for moral purity, whose legacy profoundly influenced the legal landscape regarding obscenity and contraception.

Holly Fry narrates Comstock's transformation from a Union soldier disapproving of vice to a leading figure in anti-obscenity campaigns:

"He started advocating for anti obscenity and anti vice laws..." [06:02]

Tracy V. Wilson details the enactment and enforcement of the Comstock Act of 1873, which targeted the distribution of "obscene" materials, including contraception:

"The Comstock act was signed into law in March of 1873... Violating this law was punishable with a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500 or hard labor of not less than one year or more than 10 years or both." [07:33]

Early Battles for Birth Control: Pioneers and Legal Struggles

The hosts explore the relentless efforts by birth control advocates like Margaret Sanger, who faced legal challenges while striving to make contraception accessible.

Holly Fry recounts Sanger's trial in 1916 and the pivotal United States vs. One Package case in 1936:

"This case was filed against the package itself. This is a weirder thing that happens in the law sometimes where you file suit against an inanimate object." [10:41]

These legal battles gradually eroded the stringent prohibitions, setting the stage for Connecticut's unique stance on contraception.

Connecticut's Anti-Contraception Law: A Persistent Barrier

Tracy V. Wilson traces Connecticut's staunch anti-contraception laws back to 1879, highlighting key figures like Phineas Taylor Barnum and the severe penalties imposed:

"Under this law, quote, any person who uses any drug, medicinal, article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined... or imprisoned." [17:08]

Holly Fry discusses the societal and legal obstacles faced by advocates in Connecticut, including the raid on a Waterbury contraceptive clinic in 1938:

"In 1938, authorities raided a contraceptive clinic in Waterbury, Connecticut..." [17:56]

The Road to Griswold v. Connecticut: Legal Precedents and Persistent Advocacy

The episode delves into the pivotal cases leading up to Griswold, including Trubek v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman, which collectively underscored the urgent need to challenge Connecticut's restrictive laws.

Holly Fry outlines the personal stories behind these cases, emphasizing the desperate measures couples took to access contraception:

"The Supreme Court dismissed this case, finding that... there was no injury for the court to need to remedy." [24:05]

Estelle Griswold and Charles Buxton: Catalysts for Change

[26:15] Following the Supreme Court's reluctance to address the issue without direct legal challenges, Griswold and Buxton took decisive action.

Holly Fry narrates their bold move to open a contraceptive clinic in New Haven immediately after the Court's decision:

"On June 20, 1961, just a day after the Supreme Court decision, Griswold and Buxton announced that they would be opening a contraceptive clinic in New Haven." [26:15]

Their clinic, aimed specifically at married couples, quickly faced legal repercussions, leading to their arrest and subsequent trial.

Griswold v. Connecticut: The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision

On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, with a narrow 7-2 majority ruling that struck down Connecticut's anti-contraception laws.

Tracy V. Wilson breaks down the Court's deliberations and opinions:

"...the Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy, which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights." [32:53]

The majority opinion, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, invoked the concept of "penumbras" — zones of privacy implied by various constitutional provisions.

Holly Fry further explains the rationale behind the majority:

"The majority opinion referenced a series of previous cases in which protected rights were interpreted as being broader than what was spelled out in the constitution." [34:39]

Dissents and Divergent Views

Despite the majority's stance, Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart dissented, expressing discomfort with the Court overstepping its bounds to infer unenumerated rights:

"Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his dissent, quote, I think this is an uncommonly silly law..." [38:05]

Their dissent highlighted concerns about judicial activism and the implications of inferring rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Legacy and Far-Reaching Implications

Griswold v. Connecticut has since become a cornerstone for numerous Supreme Court decisions, shaping the discourse around privacy, reproductive rights, and personal autonomy.

Tracy V. Wilson connects Griswold to subsequent landmark cases:

"In 1973, the court issued its decision in Roe vs Wade, finding the right to privacy established in Griswold as being inherent in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment and also extending to a person's decision to terminate a pregnancy." [42:34]

Holly Fry emphasizes the enduring influence of Griswold on cases like Obergefell v. Hodges and its mention in the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization:

"...in his concurring opinion, Clarence Thomas wrote that future cases should reconsider rulings that have relied on substantive due process, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." [44:32]

Critical Perspectives and Ongoing Debates

While Griswold is celebrated for advancing privacy rights, the episode also addresses its limitations and criticisms:

1. Narrow Focus on Marriage: The decision primarily protected married couples, leaving unmarried individuals without the same constitutional safeguards.

2. Lack of Gender Equality Emphasis: Critics, especially women's rights activists, argued that the Court should have grounded its decision in equal protection principles rather than privacy, highlighting the absence of an explicit right to bodily autonomy for women.

3. Influence of External Reports: Research suggests that international perspectives, such as the UK's Wolfenden Report, may have influenced the Court's reasoning, although Griswold didn't extend these considerations to same-sex relationships until much later.

Conclusion: Griswold v. Connecticut – A Double-Edged Sword for Privacy and Rights

Griswold v. Connecticut remains a seminal case in American jurisprudence, establishing the judiciary's role in interpreting and protecting unenumerated rights. While it paved the way for broader privacy protections and reproductive freedoms, its narrow application and the controversies surrounding its reasoning reflect the complexities of constitutional law.

As Griswold continues to be cited in modern rulings, its legacy is a testament to the evolving nature of rights and the enduring debates over the balance between legislative authority and judicial interpretation.

This episode was produced by iHeartRadio’s "Stuff You Missed in History Class" with hosts Holly Fry and Tracy V. Wilson. For more insightful historical discussions, subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or your preferred podcast platform.