In the case of Baxter et al. v. Palmigiano, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that inmates are not entitled to legal counsel during disciplinary hearings within prison but must be allowed to seek assistance from fellow inmates or staff and present statements in their defense. The court also held that an inmate's silence during such proceedings can be used against them, which does not violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as they are not criminal prosecutions. This decision was based on the premise that internal disciplinary hearings were significantly different from a criminal trial; therefore, full constitutional protections did not apply.

In the dissenting opinion for Baxter et al. v. Palmigiano, Justice Brennan argued that inmates should have the right to remain silent during disciplinary hearings without it being used against them. He believed that this was a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights and could potentially lead to self-incrimination in criminal proceedings related to prison misconduct allegations. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the majority's decision allowing prisons to use an inmate's silence as evidence of guilt in disciplinary hearings, arguing it would unfairly pressure inmates into speaking out even if they risked incriminating themselves criminally by doing so.