In the 1940 case of Browder v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for tax evasion against two individuals who had failed to report income from illegal activities. The defendants argued that requiring them to report this income violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as it would force them to disclose their illegal activities. However, the court rejected this argument stating that while an individual cannot be compelled to provide information which may incriminate him or her in a criminal prosecution, there is no constitutional right protecting one from having his or her financial transactions examined by taxation authorities. Therefore, even if these transactions involve illicit activity and could potentially lead to criminal charges being filed, they must still be reported on one's taxes.

In the dissenting opinion for Browder v. United States, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was not in line with constitutional principles and violated individual rights to a fair trial. He contended that the defendants were denied their right to confront witnesses against them as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of U.S Constitution. The use of hearsay evidence from an absent co-conspirator, according to him, undermined this fundamental right and could lead to wrongful convictions based on unreliable testimony. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of conspiracy law which allowed for conviction even if some conspirators were acquitted or had charges dismissed against them; arguing it contradicted established legal principles requiring unanimity among all members involved in a conspiracy charge.