The Supreme Court case Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight revolved around the issue of a mother's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in relation to her child abuse charges. Jacqueline Bouknight was accused of abusing her infant son, Maurice, and was ordered by a court to produce him as part of an investigation into his welfare. However, she refused on the grounds that doing so could incriminate herself further. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this order violated her Fifth Amendment rights. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it did not violate these rights because producing Maurice would be considered a physical act rather than testimonial communication protected under the amendment; thus it wouldn't contribute to any criminal conviction for Ms.Bouknight . Furthermore, they stated that even if there were some element of testimony involved in producing Maurice (such as admitting possession or control), such testimony would fall within "foregone conclusion" exception since its existence location and authenticity are already known to authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. He contended that the court had previously held that individuals cannot be compelled to produce incriminating evidence against themselves, even if it is assumed they possess such evidence. In this case, he believed Ms. Bouknight should not have been required to produce her child as it could potentially lead to criminal charges against her for child abuse or neglect. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Ms. Bouknight’s custody agreement with social services negated her Fifth Amendment rights; instead asserting these rights are personal and cannot be waived by any other party except herself.