In Davis v. United States (1945), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of a federal statute that provided for the return of taxes collected erroneously or illegally. The petitioner, Davis, had paid income tax under protest and then filed suit to recover it, claiming that he was not liable for such tax because his income was exempt from taxation under an act of Congress. The government argued that since Davis did not file a claim for refund within two years after payment as required by law, his lawsuit was barred. However, the court held in favor of Davis stating that filing suit constituted "claiming" a refund within meaning of statute requiring taxpayer to file claim before suing for recovery of illegal or erroneous collection; hence he could maintain action even though no formal demand had been made prior to commencement thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority ruling failed to uphold an individual's right against self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amendment. He contended that forcing a person to produce potentially incriminating evidence, such as tax records in this case, was equivalent to compelling them to testify against themselves. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that immunity statutes could adequately protect these rights; instead asserting they often fell short of providing full protection from prosecution based on compelled testimony or its fruits. In his view, only absolute immunity would suffice - something not granted under existing law at that time.