Bartemeyer v. Iowa was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could constitutionally impose a criminal penalty for the refusal to testify in a criminal trial. The case arose when the defendant, Bartemeyer, was charged with murder and refused to testify in his own defense. The state of Iowa sought to impose a criminal penalty on Bartemeyer for his refusal to testify, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state of Iowa could not constitutionally impose a criminal penalty on Bartemeyer for his refusal to testify. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings. The Court further reasoned that the state of Iowa could not constitutionally impose a criminal penalty on Bartemeyer for his refusal to testify, as this would be a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Iowa could not constitutionally impose a criminal penalty on Bartemeyer for his refusal to testify in his own defense. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings, and that the state of Iowa could not constitutionally impose a criminal penalty on Bartemeyer for his refusal to testify.

In Bartemeyer v. Iowa, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited certain types of gambling violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because there was no discrimination between classes and all persons were equally subject to its provisions. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that while states have broad powers in regulating their own internal affairs, they cannot pass laws which are arbitrary or unreasonable in nature. He further stated that such a law as presented by Iowa would be an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty since it imposed criminal penalties for engaging in activities which had been previously allowed without any legal consequence whatsoever. Furthermore, he noted how other states had similar laws but with less severe punishments than those proposed by Iowa; thus demonstrating unequal treatment among citizens based upon where they resided within the country - something which is forbidden under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under law for all individuals regardless of location or circumstance.