Griswold v. Connecticut
E92464
Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized a constitutional right to marital privacy and struck down a state ban on contraceptive use by married couples.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Griswold v. Connecticut canonical | 13 |
| Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T720570 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Griswold v. Connecticut Context triple: [Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, citedIn, Griswold v. Connecticut]
-
A.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
-
B.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
C.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
D.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
-
E.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Griswold v. Connecticut Target entity description: Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized a constitutional right to marital privacy and struck down a state ban on contraceptive use by married couples.
-
A.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
-
B.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
C.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
D.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
-
E.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
privacy law ⓘ reproductive rights law ⓘ |
| category |
United States privacy case law
ⓘ
United States reproductive rights case law ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtTime | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| citation | 381 U.S. 479 ⓘ |
| constitutionalBasis | zones of privacy created by specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
First Amendment ⓘ Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
Fourth Amendment ⓘ Ninth Amendment ⓘ Third Amendment ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1965-06-07 ⓘ |
| decisionType | judicial review of state statute ⓘ |
| defendant |
State of Connecticut
ⓘ
linked to:
Connecticut
|
| doctrineDeveloped | penumbras and emanations theory of privacy rights ⓘ |
| fullName |
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
ⓘ
linked to:
Griswold v. Connecticut
|
| holding |
A Connecticut statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples is unconstitutional.
ⓘ
The Constitution protects a right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception use by married couples. ⓘ |
| impactOnLaterCase |
Carey v. Population Services International
ⓘ
Eisenstadt v. Baird ⓘ Lawrence v. Texas ⓘ
linked to:
Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Roe v. Wade ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
contraception
ⓘ
marital privacy ⓘ right to privacy ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ unenumerated rights ⓘ |
| lowerCourt |
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
ⓘ
linked to:
Connecticut Supreme Court
|
| majorityOpinionBy | William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| plaintiff |
C. Lee Buxton
ⓘ
Estelle T. Griswold ⓘ |
| plaintiffRole |
Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut
ⓘ
Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut ⓘ |
| recognizedRight |
constitutional right to marital privacy
ⓘ
privacy in marital relations ⓘ |
| result | Connecticut contraception ban for married couples struck down ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Connecticut ⓘ |
| statuteChallenged | Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | contraceptive counseling and use by married couples ⓘ |
| vote | 7-2 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1965 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Griswold v. Connecticut Description of subject: Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized a constitutional right to marital privacy and struck down a state ban on contraceptive use by married couples.
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Griswold v. Connecticut