As stated by Supreme Court Justice Holmes there was sufficient evidence to link the defendant with the circulation. The pamphlets were seized under a search warrant and therefore were held as committable evidence. This holds consistent with the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Also the court made the decision that Schenck was not protected under the First Amendment. Even though the Espionage Act does not mention the draft at a means of recruiting or enlistment into the United States army the conviction was upheld. The precedent set by this case is truly controversial.