In Curcio v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a custodian of records for a labor union could not be forced to produce subpoenaed documents if doing so would incriminate him personally. The case arose when Frank Curcio was held in contempt by two federal courts for refusing to comply with subpoenas demanding he produce certain books and records of Local 269, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, where he served as secretary-treasurer. He argued that producing these materials might incriminate him in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and reversed the lower court decisions holding him in contempt.

In the dissenting opinion for Curcio v. United States, Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision undermined a fundamental principle of American law: that individuals should not be compelled to incriminate themselves. He contended that forcing an individual to testify about their knowledge of documents in their possession effectively forced them to admit guilt or innocence, thereby violating their Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that this was simply a matter of identifying documents; instead, he believed it involved revealing personal thoughts and recollections which could potentially expose criminal liability. Thus, Justice Frankfurter concluded that such compulsion infringed upon constitutional protections against self-incrimination.