In the case of Reisman et al., doing business as Trammell, Rand & Nathan v. Caplin et al., 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a taxpayer could challenge an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summons issued to a third party before it was enforced. The IRS had summoned accountants who worked for taxpayers under investigation and demanded they produce records relating to their clients' tax liabilities. The taxpayers sought to quash these summonses arguing that they violated Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the court held that there is no right for a taxpayer to intervene in such proceedings because an IRS summons does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment until it is enforced by judicial process. Therefore, any constitutional issues can be raised at enforcement proceedings rather than at this stage.

In the dissenting opinion for Reisman et al., Doing Business as Trammell, Rand & Nathan v. Caplin et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against an accounting firm was an overreach of government power. He contended that this ruling allowed for potential abuse and invasion of privacy rights, as it permitted IRS agents to issue summonses without any judicial oversight or probable cause requirements. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how such unchecked authority could lead to harassment and intimidation tactics by tax collectors. The justice also criticized the court's failure to address whether accountants should be granted privilege in relation with their clients similar to attorney-client privilege.