Questions: In the landmark 1965 case of , the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is implied by other rights guaranteed in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Reynolds v. United States Roe v. Wade Griswold v. Connecticut Lemon v. Kurtzman Miller v. California

The answer is: Griswold v. Connecticut.

Explanation for each option:

1. Reynolds v. United States: This 1878 case dealt with the issue of polygamy and the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. The Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy, stating that religious practices that are criminalized by law are not protected by the First Amendment. This case did not address the right to privacy.

2. Roe v. Wade: This 1973 case is famous for its ruling that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is protected by the right to privacy, which is implied by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While it does involve the right to privacy, it is not the landmark case that first established this right.

3. Griswold v. Connecticut: This 1965 case is the correct answer. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution implicitly guarantees citizens' right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The Court found that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and that this right is implied by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

4. Lemon v. Kurtzman: This 1971 case dealt with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and resulted in the "Lemon test," which is used to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. It did not address the right to privacy.

5. Miller v. California: This 1973 case established the Miller test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. It did not address the right to privacy.

In summary, the landmark 1965 case that held the right to privacy is implied by other rights guaranteed in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments is Griswold v. Connecticut.