In the 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case Greene v. Henkel, Edward H.R. Green was subpoenaed to testify and produce documents in a federal investigation into alleged corruption involving his company's contract with the Post Office Department for mail transportation services. Green argued that he could not be compelled to travel from Texas to Washington D.C., as it exceeded the jurisdiction of a federal grand jury summons which should only cover its own district (in this case, District of Columbia). He also claimed that producing such documents would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court ruled against him on both counts, stating that under certain circumstances, an individual can indeed be summoned across state lines for a federal grand jury hearing if their testimony is deemed crucial enough by investigators. The court further held that corporations do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protections; hence Mr.Green couldn't refuse production of corporate records even though they might incriminate him personally.

In the dissenting opinion for Greene v. Henkel, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the majority's decision violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendants. He contended that a subpoena duces tecum could not be used to compel production of private papers for use in a criminal prosecution against their owner. According to him, this was equivalent to an unreasonable search and seizure which is prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, he asserted that such action would violate Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination as it forces individuals to produce evidence potentially incriminating themselves without any specific charges or allegations being made first. He believed these constitutional safeguards should apply regardless of whether one is suspected of committing fraud or other crimes against government regulations.