ABSTRACT
Much of the ruling's focus, and certainly its enduring legacy, had to do with the Court's making its decision in the name of "the right to privacy". Arguing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas claimed that, although no right to privacy is explicitly stated in the US Constitution, it is a penumbral right—meaning, in this context, that the right is understood and implied by other rights as well as by previous court rulings. The two justices who dissented from the majority's ruling, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, both agreed that the Connecticut law was a bad law, but both also insisted that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Regardless of its legal status, a great many people certainly claim that there is a moral or human right to privacy. A violation of privacy might occur when access to a person or to information about a person is out of that person's control.
