Background of the case: connecticut had a law that criminalized counseling and medical treatments aimed at preventing contraception, forbid the sale and use of contraceptives or the counseling of people to use contraceptives. Justice harlan dissented and made a broad argument for substantive due process, saying that the liberty protected by the due process clause was much broader than simply the enumerated rights in the constitution or the. Majority opinion (7-2 vote) written by justice douglas: court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. Justice douglas argues that the law violated a right to privacy: raises questions as there is not a right to privacy explicitly written in the constitution. Justice douglas notes that some of the rights contained within the bill of rights, specifically the 1st, 3rd, Case shows the development and evolution of right to privacy jurisprudence. Case concerned a massachusetts law that forbid the sale or use of contraceptives by unmarried couples.