In actuality, the privacy right is one of the fundamental human rights that the US citizens can exercise. However, the right to privacy is not clearly stated in the US Constitution but this right is commonly exercised because it is implicitly stated in the US Constitution and other legal acts and cases.
In this respect, it is possible to refer to the case of Poe vs. Ullman. Poe vs. Ullman challenged the Connecticut law that banned doctors advising their patients to use contraceptives (Levy, 1995). However, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked the standing because they challenged the law that had never been implemented. Therefore the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unripe and the plaintiffs could not challenge the law. Therefore, the privacy right of individuals was still under a threat because the Supreme Court did not take the side of the plaintiffs, who attempted to protect their privacy right to use contraceptives banned by the Connecticut law.
In contrast, Griswold vs. Connecticut case had a different outcome in regard to the privacy right. The Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution protected the right of citizens to privacy, while the Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy (Lasson, 2007). Therefore, the Court took the side of the plaintiffs. In this regard, Douglass referred to penumbras of constitutional protections which did not protected the privacy right directly but implicitly. In other words, the US Constitution contained implications which protected the right of citizens to privacy and laid the legal foundation to the right to privacy being exercised in the US.
In such a way, the aforementioned case enhanced the privacy right.