In the case of In re Chapman, 1894, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning contempt of court and constitutional rights. The petitioner, Mr. Chapman was held in contempt by a lower court for refusing to answer certain questions during grand jury proceedings regarding his personal affairs and business transactions that could potentially incriminate him. He argued that this violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision stating that he had no such privilege under federal law as it stood at that time because he was not being asked about criminal activities but rather civil matters related to bankruptcy fraud allegations against him which were within jurisdiction of Congress under its power to regulate commerce among states.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Chapman, 1894, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contempt conviction for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury was incorrect. The dissent believed that the petitioner had been denied his constitutional right against self-incrimination. They contended that this protection should extend not only to criminal trials but also during grand jury proceedings and other preliminary stages of legal processes. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "witness" in relation to Fifth Amendment protections, arguing it should include anyone compelled to provide evidence or testimony under oath. Thus, according to them, compelling someone like Chapman - who was not on trial himself -to testify about matters potentially incriminating him violated his rights as per their understanding of Fifth Amendment protections.