In the case of Rogers v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving contempt of court and self-incrimination. The petitioner, Mrs. Ethel Newlin Rogers, was summoned to testify before a grand jury in relation to an investigation into alleged violations of Prohibition laws by her husband and others. She refused to answer certain questions based on her belief that she might incriminate herself or her spouse. As a result, she was held in contempt by the lower courts for refusing to comply with their orders compelling testimony. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings stating that while individuals have protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment; this privilege can be waived if not invoked correctly at appropriate times during proceedings - which Mrs.Rogers failed to do so when initially questioned before grand jury where she answered some questions but then later refused further cooperation without claiming any constitutional privilege until after being charged with contempt.

In the dissenting opinion for Rogers v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an individual's refusal to answer questions before a grand jury due to potential self-incrimination. He argued that this violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and was not in line with previous court decisions which protected individuals from being compelled to provide evidence against themselves. Furthermore, he contended that it was unreasonable for someone who had already been indicted by a grand jury for one crime, as in this case, should be forced under threat of contempt charges to potentially incriminate themselves further by answering additional questions related to other possible crimes. This would essentially force them into becoming witnesses against their own interests without any protection or immunity granted by law.