Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Right to privacy
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
The right to privacy refers to personal protections stated or interpreted in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments that implicitly protect individual privacy regarding access to personal information and personal autonomy from government interference.[1]
Background
- See also: Griswold v. Connecticut
The right to privacy was established by the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut. The case concerned an 1879 Connecticut law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or instrument in furthering contraception. C. Lee Buxton, a gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven with Estelle Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. Buxton and Griswold had planned to use the clinic as a means to challenge the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing states cannot violate citizens' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Both were arrested and convicted of violating the Connecticut statute by using the clinic to further contraception efforts. Their conviction was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.[2][1]
The case was decided 7-2 on June 7, 1965, by the United States Supreme Court holding that a right to marital privacy can be implied from multiple amendments in the Bill of Rights.[3]
First Amendment: Protection of the right to distribute, receive, and read available knowledge
- See also: First Amendment
Justice William Douglas interpreted the right to privacy to be found in the First Amendment when discussing the rights to freedom of speech and press.
| “ | In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 344 U. S. 195)... Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure.[4] | ” |
| —William Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Third Amendment: Protection of homeowners' ability to consent to quarter soldiers during peacetimes
- See also: Third Amendment
Justice William Douglas interpreted the right to privacy to be found in the Third Amendment when discussing the rights of homeowners to consent to quarter soldiers in their homes.
| “ | The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy.[4] | ” |
| —William Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Fourth Amendment: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
- See also: Fourth Amendment
Justice William Douglas interpreted the right to privacy to be found in the Fourth Amendment when discussing the right of citizens to be secure and protected against unreasonable search and seizures.
| “ | The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’[4] | ” |
| —William Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Fifth Amendment: Creation of a zone of privacy
- See also: Fifth Amendment
Justice William Douglas interpreted the right to privacy to be found in the Fifth Amendment when discussing the right of citizens to create a zone of privacy.
| “ | The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment.[4] | ” |
| —William Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Ninth Amendment: Protection of additional fundamental rights from government infringement
- See also: Ninth Amendment
Justice Arthur Goldberg interpreted the right to privacy to be found in the Ninth Amendment when discussing the protection of additional fundamental rights outlined in the previous eight amendments from government infringement.
| “ | The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.[4] | ” |
| —Arthur Goldberg, concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Fourteenth Amendment: Incorporation of the right to privacy against the states
The justices found the right to privacy to be made incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Zones of Privacy
Justice William Douglas, writing for the court, argued rights implied in multiple articles in the Bill of Rights created zones of privacy, which cannot be intruded upon by the states per the Due Process Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment:[2]
| “ | The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a 'governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.'[4] | ” |
| —William Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Ordered liberty
Justice John Harlan also offered insight into the right of privacy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Harlan found that the Connecticut statute infringes on the basic values of ordered liberty outlined in Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
| “ | In my view, the proper constitutional inquiry in this case is whether this Connecticut statute infringes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the enactment violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 325. For reasons stated at length in my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra, I believe that it does. While the relevant inquiry may be aided by resort to one or more of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, it is not dependent on them or any of their radiations. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom.[4] | ” |
| —John Harlan, concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut[2] | ||
Judicial interpretations of the right to privacy
- See also: Eisenstadt v Baird, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas
Justice Harlan's Griswold v. Connecticut opinion has been cited in later cases that broadened judicial interpretation of privacy rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. These cases include the following:
- Eisenstadt v Baird (1972): The justices found the right to privacy to include the purchase of contraception by unmarried couples.
- Roe v. Wade (1973): The justices found the right to privacy to include access to abortion (later overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization).
- Lawrence v. Texas (2003): The justices found the right to privacy to include sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex.
Changing judicial interpretations of the right to privacy
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the right to privacy regarding abortion access has changed over time. When the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Roe v. Wade, the court extended the right to privacy to encompass an individual’s access to an abortion. However, after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the court overturned the precedent established in Roe v. Wade and argued that abortion access does not fall under the right to privacy.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Legal Information Institute, "right to privacy," accessed September 6, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Justia, "Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)" accessed September 6, 2022
- ↑ Oyez, "Griswold v. Connecticut", accessed September 6, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
