Statements (140)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
November 30, 1964
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
gptkb:Justice_William_O._Douglas
7-2 ruling |
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Constitution
Civil liberties Family law Reproductive rights Privacy law |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Set a precedent for future cases
Expanded reproductive rights Influenced later privacy cases Influenced state laws on contraception Strengthened privacy doctrine |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States |
| gptkbp:cultural_impact |
Influenced popular culture
Referenced in literature Referenced in films Referenced in television shows |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
June 7, 1965 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Potter_Stewart
gptkb:Justice_Hugo_Black gptkb:Justice_John_Marshall_Harlan_II Impact on the relationship between church and state Judicial activism concerns Concerns about the implications for social policy Concerns about the implications for state rights Judicial restraint principles Historical context of marriage laws Concerns about judicial interpretation of rights Concerns about moral implications of contraception Concerns about the scope of the ruling Constitution does not explicitly guarantee privacy Impact on public policy regarding family planning Impact on state laws regarding contraception Implications for other privacy-related cases Interpretation of the Ninth Amendment Legislative authority over personal choices Legitimacy of state regulation of marriage Potential consequences for future cases Potential for conflict with federalism principles Potential for conflict with state sovereignty Potential for overreach in privacy rights Role of the judiciary in social issues State's interest in regulating marriage State's role in promoting public health Concerns about the implications for future legislation Potential for conflict with state interests in marriage Judicial interpretation of the Constitution's framers' intent Judicial interpretation of the Constitution's limits Concerns about the role of the judiciary in moral issues Potential for judicial overreach in personal matters Balance between individual rights and state interests Judicial interpretation of the Constitution's scope Concerns about the implications for individual liberties Historical precedent for state control over marriage Concerns about the implications for religious freedoms |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
1960s America
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Griswold v. Connecticut
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Abortion rights
Access to contraception Established right to marital privacy Same-sex marriage rights Influenced later privacy cases Privacy rights in the U. S. Established right to privacy in marital relations |
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement
gptkb:Eisenstadt_v._Baird gptkb:Skinner_v._Oklahoma Feminist movement |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Estelle_Griswold
gptkb:Connecticut gptkb:C._Lee_Buxton |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:Obergefell_v._Hodges
gptkb:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey gptkb:Bostock_v._Clayton_County gptkb:Ferguson_v._City_of_Charleston gptkb:Lawrence_v._Texas gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor gptkb:Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt gptkb:Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization 381 U. S. 479 (1965) |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Judicial activism
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Constitution
Civil rights Reproductive rights Marital privacy Contraceptive use |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Constitutional interpretation
Living Constitution |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Right_to_privacy
Constitutional right to privacy Impact on women's rights Constitutional protections against government intrusion Constitutional guarantees of liberty Constitutional interpretation of privacy rights Historical context of contraception laws Historical evolution of privacy rights Impact on family planning Judicial precedent on privacy issues Limitations on state power Marital autonomy Public health implications of contraception Rights of individuals versus state interests Rights of married couples Role of government in personal decisions Role of the Supreme Court in protecting rights Social implications of family planning State interest in regulating marriage |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Invalidated state restrictions on contraceptives
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down Connecticut law
Struck down a Connecticut law |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Roe_v._Wade
Privacy rights in the Constitution |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_William_O._Douglas
gptkb:William_O._Douglas 7-2 |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Support for reproductive rights
Opposition from conservative groups Controversial decision Controversial ruling |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Loving_v._Virginia
gptkb:Obergefell_v._Hodges gptkb:Lawrence_v._Texas |
| gptkbp:related_to |
Marital privacy
Contraceptive use |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Impact on women's rights
Legal scholars debate implications Impact on privacy law Impact on constitutional interpretation |
| gptkbp:significance |
Established a constitutional right to privacy
Recognized implied right to privacy First case recognizing a constitutional right to privacy |
| gptkbp:state_law_challenged |
gptkb:Connecticut_General_Statutes_Section_54-196
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|