In this case, the 1996 Communications Decency Act had language in it that sought to limit indecency and obscenity, particularly in the various forms of media (mail, television, internet, etc.). The Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment had been seriously violated because of the broad speech in the Communications Act that failed to protect the rights of adult citizens (freedom of expression, namely).

Indecency can be protected by the 1st Amendment, but the Court uses the Miller test to determine if words or expressions are unlawful (obscene).

The Supreme Court Case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) was a group response to several requirements for women to abide by if they decided to have an abortion. Pennsylvania had altered their abortion law to include requirements that including women having to wait 24 hours before going through with it and minors needing parental consent.

The Court upheld Roe v. Wade and women's right to choose for themselves, but also supported the legality of some of the Pennsylvania law. They also created the "undue burden" standard to create a scale by which to measure abortion laws throughout the states - if a law puts an undue burden on a women in one of these situations, then it can be reasonably inferred that it is unconstitutional.

While the Supreme Court takes any claim of discrimination quite seriously, it applies its strictest standards, most rigorous reviews, and most often rules against acts of racial and/or ethnic discrimination. When the Court accepts any case which alleges discrimination, the justices first apply standards of review, or a tiered system of evaluation, to assess both the possible presence and severity of the alleged discriminatory activity. In most instances, the Court upholds only those alleged acts of discrimination which can be proven to be “reasonable” – this means that as long as the defendant is able to show that the restriction in question has a logical and necessary purpose, then no qualified discriminatory act was therefore committed. For example, perhaps a worker in their seventies is fired and so sues their employer for age discrimination. If the employer can show that the job which s/he manages requires physical and mental fitness (or other priorities which diminish with age), then the Court will most likely rule that no age discrimination was committed and the elderly worker will have lost their case. However, the Court pays special attention to alleged instances of racial and/or ethnic discrimination, which it views with automatic skepticism and therefore evaluates with the strictest possible standards in mind. An employer who is accused of racial bias, for example, must prove before the Court that s/he is innocent; the Court does not take into consideration the so-called logic of the restrictive action (as with age and/or gender discrimination) and most often finds the defendant guilty.