In the case of McCarthy v. Arndstein, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1924 that a person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in civil cases where they may face criminal charges as a result. The case involved Samuel Arndstein who was accused of bankruptcy fraud and refused to answer certain questions during his bankruptcy proceedings on the grounds that his answers could incriminate him. The court held that Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination applied not only to criminal cases but also extended to civil matters such as bankruptcy proceedings if there is potential for criminal liability.

In the dissenting opinion for McCarthy v. Arndstein, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a bankrupt individual could invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions during bankruptcy proceedings. He argued that this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was too broad and would undermine the effectiveness of bankruptcy laws by allowing individuals to withhold crucial information about their financial status. According to him, if every debtor were allowed such privilege under all circumstances, it would be impossible ever satisfactorily to administer insolvent estates; frauds could not be detected nor assets discovered or made available for creditors. Therefore, he believed that in cases like these where public interest is at stake and there are no criminal charges involved yet, an individual should not have an absolute right against self-incrimination.