In the case of Arndstein v. McCarthy, the Supreme Court ruled that a bankrupt individual cannot be compelled to testify in any proceeding which could potentially incriminate them. The court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extends to civil cases as well as criminal ones. This decision came after Samuel Arndstein was arrested for refusing to answer questions about his assets during bankruptcy proceedings on grounds of potential self-incrimination. The lower courts had rejected this argument, but the Supreme Court reversed these decisions and upheld Arndstein's right not to testify.

In the dissenting opinion for Arndstein v. McCarthy, Justice Pitney argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to consider the petitioner's refusal to answer questions in a bankruptcy proceeding on grounds of self-incrimination. He believed this refusal constituted contempt of court and justified his imprisonment. The justice also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Fifth Amendment rights, arguing that these protections did not extend so far as to allow individuals involved in legal proceedings to refuse answering any question merely on an unsubstantiated claim they might incriminate themselves. Instead, he contended such claims should be evaluated based on their reasonableness and relevance within each specific context. In his view, allowing such broad application undermined judicial processes by enabling potential evasion or obstruction of justice under guise of constitutional protection.