Prior to this decision, the statute in question had been challenged twice, in Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman.
Prior to this decision, the statute in question had been challenged twice, in Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman. Seven years after this decision, its scope was expanded in a case that concerned a man who engaged in a controversial practice after giving a lecture at Boston University. [*] That case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, involved a Massachusetts law that forbade distributing an item to a certain class of people. The law under dispute in this case was a state statute of 1879 which even the dissenting justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, agreed was "uncommonly silly." The majority opinion written by William Douglas refers to rights that are implicit in the Constitution, while other justices relied on a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment and its "due process" clause to find that there was a protected "right to privacy." FTP, name this 1965 decision which invalidated a statute forbidding the sale of contraceptives to married persons.
Prior to this decision, the statute in question had been challenged twice, in Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman.
{Griswold v. Connecticut}