In the 1963 case of Murphy et al. v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state could not force an individual to give self-incriminating testimony that could be used in a criminal prosecution against them in another jurisdiction. The case involved two longshoremen who were subpoenaed by the Waterfront Commission and refused to answer questions on grounds they might incriminate themselves under federal law. They were granted immunity from prosecution under state laws but not federal ones, so they argued their Fifth Amendment rights would be violated if forced to testify without full immunity. The court agreed with this argument, stating that constitutional rights must have uniform application throughout the nation and cannot depend upon geography or varying state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Murphy et al. v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles regarding self-incrimination and immunity statutes. He contended that this case should have been decided based on existing federal law rather than state law since it involved an interstate compact approved by Congress. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that a witness could refuse to testify based on fear of foreign prosecution because such fears were speculative and not grounded in reality or legal precedent. In his view, granting witnesses such broad protections would undermine effective enforcement of laws as it would allow them to avoid testifying about their criminal activities simply by claiming they feared prosecution abroad.