Slavery and involuntary servitude were both legal in America until 1865 when the 13th Amendment was added to the Constitution. This amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude throughout the territory of the United States, in each State.

Slavery and forced labor affected the African American population the most. African American population continued to suffer discrimination in society even after the adoption of the 13th Amendment.

The Supreme Court considered several cases involving racial discrimination and in which the injured parties invoked the 13th Amendment, but initially took the view that racial discrimination expressed by individuals was allowed.
As a consequence of these views of the Supreme Court, Congress withdrew certain laws certain passed under the 13th Amendment. Those laws that remained were not applied in full capacity.

The key change of course occurred in 1968 after the Jones v. Mayer case. This case was initiated by Jones to whom the owner of the estate (Mayer) refused to sell the house because he is a member of the African American population. Jones referred to the law that was passed in 1866, which, among other things, guaranteed that citizens of all races and colors can buy property on the territory of the United States. The Supreme Court confirmed this with a verdict and with a few later ones that racial discrimination is prohibited in all areas concerning the lives of individuals.

Although the 2nd Amendment mentions the right of people to keep and bear arms, opinions are divided on whether this applies only to members of the armed forces or also to civilians.

The Supreme Court initially took the stand in its decisions that this right did not apply to ordinary citizens, but later revised this view.
In the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, the court took the view that the 2nd Amendment allows to law abiding citizens to keep weapons in the house. He confirmed his position with verdicts in later cases, such as McDonald v. Chicago, 2010.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees people the security of their home, that is, that the government must not endanger anyone’s home without justified reasons. These government restrictions are specified in the 3rd and 4th amendments.

**3rd Amendment** prohibits the placement of soldiers in private homes of people without their consent, during war and peace. In a wartime, there are some exceptions to these rules, but they are strictly defined by law.

**4th Amendment** implies that the police cannot search people, their homes and cars when it’s looking for evidence, or arrest people without a proper warrant. The warrant must contain a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed – **probable cause**. The exception to the requirement for the police to have a warrant is when the evidence is obvious – “in plain view”.

**The exclusionary rule** is a rule adopted by the Supreme Court and means that evidence collected by the police in an illegal manner cannot be used at trial.

This rule appeared 1914 in Weeks v. United States case, in which the Court found that evidence collected illegally by federal officers could not be used before federal courts. The rule did not apply to the State Courts at that time, so the States had the opportunity to decide whether to apply the rule or not.

Following the 1961 case, Mapp v. Ohio, this rule is incorporated into the laws of the States.

Despite the Court’s decisions, the exclusionary rule continued to be the subject of discussion. Proponents of this rule argue that the 4th Amendment would not make sense without it, while opponents of the rule point out that it allows perpetrators to avoid appropriate punishment.

Following these dissenting opinions, the Court continued to redefine the exclusionary rule and set some exceptions to this rule:

**1. Inevitable discovery
2. Knock-and-announce
3. Good Faith
4. Honest Mistakes**

The Supreme Court has taken the stand that the Constitution guarantees people the right to privacy, although this is not explicitly stated. One aspect of the right to privacy is a woman’s right to an abortion. This issue has caused numerous divisions in society and different interpretations.

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the law of the state of Texas which forbade abortion in all cases unless necessary to save the life of the mother. This was 1973 Roe v. Wade case. In the verdict, the court pointed out three important periods in which it distinguishes the state’s ability to ban abortion:
1. In the first trimester of pregnancy, the State cannot influence a woman’s decision regarding abortion
2. In the second trimester, women have the right to abortion, and the State has the right to enact reasonable regulations on the manner, place and time of abortion.
3. In the third trimester, the state has the right to prohibit abortion unless it is necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother

In later cases, the court continued to define the right to abortion.
In 1989 the Court supported Missouri law that banned abortion in public hospitals and clinics in the State when the pregnancy was over the 20th week and when it was determined that the fetus could survive outside the mother’s womb. This law also contains a provision that abortion is allowed if it is necessary to save the mother’s life and her health.

1990 The Court upheld laws relating to abortion of minors, which required informing parents prior to the act.

1992 in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey case, the Court upheld the provisions of the law under which the State may reasonably restrict the right to abortion if those restrictions do not impose an “undue burden” on the woman.

2000 in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court overturned a Nebraska law prohibiting partial birth abortions.

In 2007, during the Gonzalez v. Carhart case, the Court confirmed the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003. This act prohibited certain methods of abortion that were contrary to partial birth abortion.