In the 1964 case of Drews et al. v. Maryland, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to consider whether a state law that required motorists to submit to breathalyzer tests violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The appellants were drivers who had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI). They argued that being forced to take a breathalyzer test amounted to compelled self-incrimination because it could provide evidence of their guilt. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld Maryland's implied consent statute as constitutional. The court reasoned that taking a breath sample is not testimonial or communicative in nature and therefore does not involve any compulsion over an individual’s mind which would be protected by Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Furthermore, they noted that such laws are necessary for public safety on highways since drunk driving poses significant risks.

In the dissenting opinion for Drews et al. v. Maryland, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage violated fundamental principles of equality and individual freedom. The dissenters believed that such laws were inherently discriminatory and served no legitimate public interest. They contended that the right to marry is a basic human right, central to personal happiness and well-being, which should not be restricted on racial grounds. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how these laws were applied - noting instances where individuals of mixed race could legally marry some people but not others based on arbitrary determinations of their racial identity by authorities. This arbitrariness further underscored the unjust nature of these laws in their view.