The U.S. Supreme Court case Adamson v. California in 1946 revolved around the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution applied certain protections under the Bill of Rights, specifically Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, to state courts as well as federal ones. The petitioner, Adamson, was convicted for first-degree murder in a California court and had refused to testify on his own behalf during trial; he argued that this refusal should not have been held against him based on his Fifth Amendment rights. However, at that time these specific protections were only explicitly extended to federal cases by law. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Stanley Forman Reed, it was ruled that such provisions did not apply universally across both state and federal jurisdictions - thus upholding Adamson's conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Adamson v. California, Justice Hugo Black and Justice Wiley Rutledge argued that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all aspects of the Bill of Rights and applied them to state governments. They contended that this interpretation was consistent with the original intent of those who drafted, debated, and ratified these amendments. The justices believed that by not fully incorporating all rights in states' legal systems, it would lead to a fragmented system where federal courts could provide more protection than state courts for certain civil liberties. This view is known as total incorporation doctrine or simply "incorporation." In their perspective, Frank Adamson should have been protected under his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at his trial in California's state court - a right which they believe extends beyond federal trials due to incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.