What are some US Supreme Courts cases about the Fifth Amendment?

Answer 1

Selection of Historic and Landmark Fifth Amendment Cases

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833)

Held that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause did not apply apply to the states in cases of eminent domain.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)

Held slavery constitutional. Declared slaves were property and denied the US had a right to free slaves when brought into territories where slaveholding was illegal, under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Adair v. United States, 208 US 161 (1908)

Held Congress cannot make firing an employee for membership in a labor union a criminal offense on the part of the employer.

Twining v. State, 211 US 78 (1908)

Held the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply in state courts.

Chambers v. Florida, 309 US 227 (1940)

Murder convictions cannot be obtained by use of coerced confessions.

Adamson v. California, 332 US 46 (1947)

Upheld Twining v. State ruling that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is not binding on the states.

Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954)

Found the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 constitutional under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, despite eminent domain being exercised for commercial development.

Ullman v. United States, 350 US 422 (1956)

Held the Immunity Act of 1954, which allowed prosecutors to compel self-incriminating testimony regarding Communist activity (as a matter of national security) was a legitimate exception to Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The Court upheld the Act.

Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 350 US 551 (1956)

Held that a provision of the New York City charter (1956) that allowed the city to fire without hearing or notice employees who exercised privilege against self-incrimination was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mallory v. United States, 354 US 449 (1957)

Held that a defendant who was neither advised of his rights nor taken before a committing magistrate prior to confessing was tried under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, and reversed his conviction. Although this is technically a Fifth Amendment issue similar to Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), the Court did not touch on constitutional protections in their decision.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

Held that the US Secretary of State was not authorized to withhold passports from citizens on the basis of alleged communistic beliefs or refusal to file affidavits concerning past or present membership in the Communist Party.

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964)

Held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing individuals' Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, and that the protection applies to witnesses as well as defendants. (Compare with Adamson v. California,(1947))

Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board,382 US 70 (1965)

Held that the Subversive Activities Control Board requirement compelling individuals to register under the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 was self-incriminatory, creating an opportunity to use the information as evidence or the basis of an investigation, and therefore, unconstitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Held that neither exculpatory nor inculpatory statements given before someone in police custody was advised of their rights or allowed access to an attorney were inadmissable in court. The police action was in violation the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Miranda Warning was established as a direct result of this case.

Warden v. Hayden, 387 US 294 (1967)

Primarily a Fourth Amendment case, the Court held evidence obtained in a legal search was neither "testimonial" nor "communicative," and therefore their use in court did not constitute a Fifth Amendment violation.

Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970)

Held that a Florida rule of criminal procedure requiring a defendant to disclose the names of intended alibi witnesses was constitutional, despite the defendant's claim that supplying the names was a Fifth Amendment violation on the grounds that the information could be used to convict him. The Court found the discovery rule only accelerated the timing of the defendant's declaration of intent to use an alibi defense, and therefore was not self-incriminating.

Harris v. New York, 401 US 222 (1971)

Modified the Miranda decision to allow admission of a defendant's otherwise excluded statement if the statement conflicts with the testimony, as a means of impeaching him as a witness. The right to testify or refuse to testify does not include the right to commit perjury.

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 US 88 (1976)

Held that the federal government cannot create a blanket exclusion from civil service employment against lawful resident aliens without conducting a hearing or specifically justifying a reason on a by-case basis. The exclusion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 US 610 (1976)

Prosecution cannot use a defendant's decision to invoke Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination to impeach later testimony at trial. Silence following arrest is ambiguous, not incriminating, and can't be used against the defendant.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 US 74 (1980)

Held that a California state constitutional provision allowing people the right to solicit signatures on private property is constitutional and does not violate the shopping center owner's property rights.

Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980)

Held that Title XIX (the Hyde Amendment) of the Medicaid program does not require states to pay for medically necessary abortion, and is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz,449 US 166 (1980)

Used the rational basis test to uphold the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 as constitutional, despite certain provisions of the Act creating a larger windfall profit for a limit number of former railroad employees. Held the law was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkif, 467 US 229 (1984)

Upheld the constitutionality of Hawaiian legislation, the Land Reform Act of 1967, which allowed certain land to be condemned and title transferred from the lessor to the lessee in order to break a landholding monopoly.

Nollan v. California Coast Community, 483 US 825 (1987)

Held that requiring the landowner to allow a public easement on his beachfront property connecting one public beach to another was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause because the owner was compensated in the form of a zoning exception and permit that allowed him to construct a bungalow in an area that would otherwise not be allowed.

Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US 279 (1991)

Held that a confession made to an FBI informant posing as an organized crime figure in exchange for protection from other inmates was coercive and inadmissible under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173 (1991)

Upheld the constitutionality of the Secretary of Health and Human Services interpretation of Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which had vague wording that neither explicitly permitted nor denied federal funds to be used for abortion counseling, after the Secretary decided not to allocate money money for that purpose. Held that the interpretation was reasonable and not a violation of the Fifth, First or Fourth Amendments.

Adarand Construction Inc. v. Pena, 515 US 200 (1995)

Held that the trial court had not applied strict scrutiny in evaluating whether a race-based diversity provision of a government building contract served a valid purpose or resulted in unequal treatment under the Fifth Amendment. Remanded.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning, 535 US 302 (2002)

Held that a 32-month regulatory moratorium on development in the Tahoe area did not constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and was not compensable.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 US 469 (2005)

Held that the government exercised eminent domain appropriately when transferring property from unwilling sellers of private property to a private developer who planned to use the land for economic development (shopping and office space). The transfer constituted a permissible interpretation of "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. AND YOUR GAY AS HECK!

Answer 2

The 5th amendment relates to testifying against yourself. You cannot be forced to admit to a crime when being interviewed in court as a witness. When you are being asked to incriminate yourself, you "plead the fifth."

Answer 3

Miranda V Arizona