In the case of Von Cleef et al. v. New Jersey, 1968, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by the state court that upheld an ordinance prohibiting fortune-telling for fees as a business practice in Ridgefield Park Village. The appellants were convicted and fined under this ordinance after they provided astrology readings and spiritual advice for payment without obtaining necessary licenses from local authorities. They argued that their First Amendment rights had been violated because their activities constituted religious practices protected by freedom of religion clauses. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction since no substantial federal question was presented in this case; therefore, it affirmed lower courts' decisions without issuing any opinion or explanation about its reasoning process behind such action (per curiam). This means that while some might interpret this refusal as tacit approval of laws regulating commercial fortune-telling services within certain jurisdictions, others may view it simply as recognition of states' authority over matters not explicitly addressed in U.S Constitution or federal statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Von Cleef et al. v. New Jersey, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law banning fortune telling was an infringement on free speech rights protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He contended that while some may view fortune telling as fraudulent or deceptive, it is not inherently so and should be considered a form of expression subject to constitutional protection unless proven otherwise in individual cases. Furthermore, he suggested that if all forms of deception were criminalized, many accepted practices such as advertising could also be deemed illegal under similar reasoning used by the majority in this case.