Concurrence Justice Goldberg Summary

Concurrences and Dissents: Concurrence: Justice Goldberg begins by contradicting Justice Stewart’s argument that there is no right to privacy written in the Bill of Rights or established by previous cases, stating that the Court has “never held that the Bill of Rights of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights that the Constitution specifically mentions by name.” In fact, the equal protection clause was not explicitly stated the Constitution, but was derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. at 499, 74 S.Ct. at 694). The Court also emphasizes that the Due Process Clause protects certain rights that are “fundamental” to our notions of order and liberty. Justice Goldberg will continue from here to demonstrate how, in his view, privacy in marital relations is classified under this category. In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, the Court asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to “’marry, establish a home and bring up …show more content…
The cases used to support the concurring opinions, like Shelton v. Tucker and Bates v. City of Little Rock, are not relevant because they deal with the rights of association of the First Amendment, which is “wholly inapposite” to the problem at hand. Additionally, the Court’s decision in McLaughlin v. State of Florida is not relevant because that used the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate a law that discriminated against African Americans.

Justice Stewart concludes by stating that the Court has no right to invalidate the law, as that should be done by the legislature. In fact, the Connecticut House of Representatives had just recently passed House Bill No. 2462 repealing the law, though following this case a Senate vote would be unnecessary. Thus, Justice Stewart dissents in the opinion and would uphold the Appellants’ convictions.