In Kordel v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a corporation and its officers could be criminally prosecuted based on evidence obtained through civil proceedings initiated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The defendants argued that their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated when they were compelled to produce documents in the civil case that were later used in their criminal prosecution. However, the court ruled 5-4 against them stating that there was no violation of constitutional rights because both actions - civil and criminal - are legally distinct even if arising from same facts or circumstances. Furthermore, it held that defendants had an opportunity to object to providing potentially incriminating evidence during the civil proceeding but failed to do so. Therefore, any subsequent use of such information did not constitute coercion or compulsion under Fifth Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Kordel v. United States, it was argued that the government's actions in this case violated principles of fair play and justice. The defendant corporation and its officers were subjected to a civil proceeding by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), during which they provided information under compulsion of subpoena. This information was later used against them in a criminal prosecution, without any warning from the FDA about potential self-incrimination risks. The dissenting justices believed that such use of civil proceedings to obtain evidence for criminal prosecutions is fundamentally unfair, as defendants are effectively tricked into providing incriminating evidence against themselves without knowing their rights or having an opportunity to seek legal counsel. They also noted that while corporations do not have Fifth Amendment rights per se, corporate officers should still be protected from being compelled to provide self-incriminating testimony.