In Selzman v. United States (1924), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted for refusing to answer questions during a grand jury investigation into alleged violations of the National Prohibition Act. The defendant, Selzman, argued that his refusal was justified as he believed answering would incriminate him in other crimes not related to the one being investigated by the grand jury. However, the court held that if a witness is called before a grand jury and refuses to answer any question on grounds it may tend to incriminate him, such refusal constitutes contempt unless it appears that answering might subject him or her to prosecution for another offense which has no connection with those under inquiry by this particular body. Therefore, Selzman's conviction was upheld because he failed to demonstrate how his answers could potentially implicate him in unrelated criminal activity.

In the dissenting opinion for Selzman v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Selzman's conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 infringed upon his First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that Selzman’s actions did not pose a clear and present danger to national security or obstruct military recruitment, which are key criteria in determining whether speech can be lawfully restricted under this act. They contended that while some may find his anti-war sentiments offensive or unpatriotic, they were nonetheless protected by free speech provisions in the Constitution. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse of such laws to suppress political dissidence rather than protect national security interests.