In Schroeder v. City of New York (1962), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to terminate a public employee for refusing to testify before a grand jury about alleged corruption. The case involved Charles J. Schroeder, an engineer employed by the Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity in New York City who was dismissed from his position after he refused to waive immunity or answer questions regarding potential misconduct within his department during a grand jury investigation. Schroeder sued on grounds that his dismissal violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment as well as First Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, the court held that while employees have constitutional protections against forced testimony incriminating themselves in criminal matters, they do not have absolute right to refuse all questioning related to their employment without facing consequences such as job termination.

In the dissenting opinion for Schroeder v. City of New York, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding eminent domain and compensation. He contended that the Court had previously held that when part of a property is taken for public use, any decrease in value to the remaining portion should be considered in determining just compensation. However, he believed this principle was ignored by excluding consideration of damages caused by construction activities related to the project for which land was seized. He also disagreed with how future benefits were calculated into offsetting present damages to property owners' lands during construction phase without considering whether these benefits would actually materialize or not. Furthermore, he criticized what he saw as an unfair burden placed on individual property owners who are forced to bear losses resulting from public improvements designed for community benefit at large.