In the case of Hoffman v. United States in 1950, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a witness cannot be held in contempt for refusing to answer questions on grounds of self-incrimination during congressional hearings. The petitioner, Louis B. Hoffman was convicted for contempt after he refused to answer certain questions during his examination before a Congressional Committee investigating alleged communist infiltration into labor unions. He argued that his refusal was based on Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as answering might expose him to federal criminal charges or state prosecutions related to perjury and false swearing committed years ago. The court reversed his conviction stating that if answers would incriminate him under either Federal or State law then he is protected by the Fifth Amendment right from being compelled to testify.

In the dissenting opinion for Hoffman v. United States, Justice Clark disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Hoffman's conviction on grounds of self-incrimination. He argued that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination should not apply in this case because there was no real danger of prosecution for any crimes related to his testimony. According to him, it is only when a witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from direct answers that he or she can refuse to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds. In this case, all possible statutes of limitations had expired and therefore there were no legal repercussions that could result from his testimony. Thus, Justice Clark believed that Hoffman should have been compelled to testify and his refusal constituted contempt of court.