Emerson argued the case for Griswold.
Clark argued the case for Connecticut.
Connecticut prohibited the use of drugs or instruments to prevent conception, and the giving of assistance or counsel in their use. The laws in question had been enacted in 1879. Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned. The Executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and , following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use.
The Constitutional Question.
Should people be allowed access to drugs or devices designed to stop contraception, and thus be able to engage in sex without having to worry as much about pregnancy?.
Martin v Struthers (1943): 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, and the right to read.
Weiman v Updegraff (1952): The right of freedom of speech and press includes the freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach.
NAACP v Alabama (1958): The court protected the freedom of association and privacy in one's associations.
Snyder v Massachusetts (1934): The court stated that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people. .
United Public Workers v Mitchell (1947): The Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal government or the states is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments.