In the case of Cobbledick et al. v. United States in 1939, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to deny a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus sought by petitioners who were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. The petitioners argued that their testimony could incriminate them in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court ruled that witnesses cannot refuse to comply with subpoenas on these grounds because they are not defendants but merely potential defendants until an indictment is returned by the grand jury. Furthermore, it was held that allowing such challenges would disrupt and delay proceedings as every witness could potentially challenge any inquiry made during investigations or trials on similar grounds.

In the dissenting opinion for Cobbledick et al. v. United States, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision undermined a fundamental principle of American law: that individuals should not be subjected to legal proceedings without an opportunity for judicial review. He contended that by allowing grand jury witnesses to be held in contempt without any chance for appeal, the court was effectively denying these individuals their constitutional right to due process. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by prosecutors and grand juries who could use this ruling as a means to coerce testimony from reluctant witnesses under threat of imprisonment. In his view, such practices were inconsistent with principles of fairness and justice upon which the U.S legal system is based.