The U.S. Supreme Court case Lefkowitz v. Cunningham in 1976 involved the Fifth Amendment rights of a public official, Paul R. Cunningham, who was also an officer of a political party in New York State. The Attorney General of New York sought to remove him from his position due to his refusal to waive immunity and testify about matters relating to his office before a grand jury investigation into corruption allegations against him and others within the party organization. The court ruled that forcing Cunningham's removal violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he was essentially being penalized for exercising this constitutional protection by refusing to testify without immunity from prosecution based on any potentially incriminating evidence revealed during testimony.

In the dissenting opinion for Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding Fifth Amendment rights and self-incrimination. He contended that by requiring public officials to waive their constitutional protections against self-incrimination as a condition of office, it did not necessarily equate to coercion or involuntary testimony. Furthermore, he believed this requirement could serve as an effective deterrent against corruption in public offices. The justice also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Garrity v New Jersey; he asserted that unlike police officers who faced immediate job loss if they refused to testify in Garrity case, Cunningham had been given ample time and opportunity to seek legal counsel before making his decision about whether or not to waive his immunity rights.