In the United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments, there is in no place a reference to the so called “Right to Privacy.” But in several Supreme Court Cases, the judges have ruled in favor of a certain decision by stating that people of the United States have a “Right to Privacy.” How do these judges make the conclusion that there is a right to privacy guaranteed in the constitution, when it is not specifically written? The answer is, that they imply the power based on several of the already predefined amendments.
In the Supreme Court Case, Gideons vs. Connecticut (1965), the Court ruled that the Connecticut law stating that no contraceptive may be used. The plaintiff argued that they should not be penalized for something they do in there own home. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that there was a right to privacy in a man’s home. In Mapp vs. Ohio, Police received an anonymous tip that there was a bomber inside the residence of a Mrs. Mapp. They came to her house, and she refused them in without a search warrant. The police came back later, handcuffed Mapp, and found several items of obscene material throughout her house. The supreme court ruled in favor the Mapp, stating the right to privacy in ones home, and the guarantees that the fourth and fourteenth amendments have.
What gives the court the right to base a decision on the right to privacy? The first amendment to the constitution states that people have the rights of speech, religion, press, petition, and “assembly.” More specifically, “freedom to associate.” The court ruled that “the disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, was invalid.” It also ruled that “we have protection in the associations that are not political in the customary sense, but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members,” in NAACP vs. Button.