The U.S. Supreme Court case Hubbell v. United States in 1900 revolved around the issue of whether a private contract that violated public policy could be enforced by law. The plaintiff, Webster Hubbell, had entered into an agreement with certain individuals to secure their influence and assistance in obtaining a government contract for his company's product - water meters. However, when these individuals failed to fulfill their part of the deal, he sued them for breach of contract. The defendants argued that since the original agreement was illegal (as it involved bribery), it should not be enforceable under law. The court agreed with this argument and ruled against Hubbell stating that no court would lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. This decision reinforced the principle that contracts involving corruption or illegality are void and unenforceable as they violate public policy.

The dissenting opinion in the Hubbell v. United States case argued that the majority's decision to exclude evidence obtained through a subpoena was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there was no violation of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, as they viewed the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena as not testimonial but rather an act of surrender. They contended that while it is true one cannot be compelled to provide testimony against oneself, this protection does not extend to physical evidence or documents already existing independently from one’s will. Therefore, according to them, compelling someone under oath before a grand jury investigation did not violate their constitutional rights because these were pre-existing materials and did not involve any personal testimonial communication on part of Mr.Hubbell.