In the case of Garrity et al. v. New Jersey, police officers in New Jersey were investigated for allegations of fixing traffic tickets. During the investigation, they were informed that anything they said could be used against them in court but if they refused to answer questions, it would result in their dismissal from service. The officers answered under this compulsion and their statements were later used as evidence to convict them at trial. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that using these compelled statements violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination because public employees should not have to choose between incriminating themselves or losing their jobs. This decision established what is known as "Garrity Rights," which protect public employees from being forced into making potentially incriminating statements during internal investigations by threatening job loss.

In the dissenting opinion for Garrity et al. v. New Jersey, Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the majority's decision to extend Fifth Amendment protections to state employees was a significant departure from established precedent and an unwarranted expansion of constitutional rights. He contended that public employees should not be shielded from answering questions about their job performance under threat of dismissal, as this would impede government efficiency and integrity by making it more difficult to uncover misconduct or corruption within public offices. Furthermore, he believed that such protection could potentially undermine respect for the law by creating a perception among citizens that public officials are above scrutiny or accountability in carrying out their duties.