In the case of David R. McKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile (2001), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a prison's rehabilitation program violated an inmate's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incincrimination by requiring him to admit past crimes as part of his treatment for sexual offenses and threatening him with transfer to a higher security facility if he did not participate in the program. Robert G. Lile was serving time for rape and other charges when he refused to take part in a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program that required admission of all prior sexual activities, including those not charged or previously known about by authorities. Lile argued that this requirement violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because any admissions could potentially be used against him in future criminal proceedings. The court held 5-4 that there was no violation since participation in the program was voluntary and inmates were informed their statements would not be disclosed without their consent unless safety concerns arose. This decision affirmed prisons' ability to use incentive-based programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders while also protecting prisoners' constitutional rights from coercive practices.

In the dissenting opinion for McKune v. Lile, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was a significant departure from established precedent regarding Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. He contended that Robert G. Lile was being punished for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent by facing adverse consequences such as transfer to a higher security prison and loss of privileges if he did not participate in a rehabilitation program requiring admission of past crimes. The dissent also criticized the majority's comparison between this case and those involving plea bargaining or immunity grants, noting these situations involve defendants voluntarily waiving their rights in exchange for benefits while Lile faced penalties for maintaining his rights. Therefore, according to Justice Stevens' view, compelling inmates like Lile into self-incriminating speech under threat of punishment violates their Fifth Amendment protections.