In Maness v. Meyers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an attorney cannot be held in contempt of court for advising a client to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during civil proceedings. The case arose when Texas attorneys advised their clients not to produce certain documents subpoenaed by a grand jury on the grounds that doing so might incriminate them criminally. A state judge ordered the attorneys to compel their clients' compliance and held them in contempt when they refused, resulting in jail sentences and fines for both lawyers. In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that an attorney should never be penalized for asserting lawful objections or defenses on behalf of his client, even if those objections are overruled.

In the dissenting opinion for Maness v. Meyers, Justice White disagreed with the majority's ruling that attorneys cannot be held in contempt for advising their clients to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during civil proceedings. He argued that this decision would allow parties to obstruct justice and impede fact-finding processes by refusing to provide relevant information under oath. Furthermore, he contended that it could potentially lead to a widespread abuse of the privilege against self-incincrimination, as individuals may refuse to answer questions even when there is no real danger of criminal liability. Justice White also expressed concern about how this ruling might affect future cases where an individual's right not to incriminate themselves conflicts with another party’s need for evidence in civil litigation.