In the case of Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 1955, Harry Slochower was a professor at Brooklyn College who had been dismissed from his position after invoking the Fifth Amendment when questioned about alleged Communist affiliations during hearings held by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Slochower, stating that his dismissal violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was based solely on his refusal to answer questions regarding political associations and activities. The court argued that such an automatic penalty infringed upon constitutional protections against self-incrimination and did not allow for consideration of individual circumstances or intent. Therefore, they concluded that public employees could not be fired simply for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, Justice Reed argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment and its protection against self-incrimination. He believed that invoking this right should not be seen as an admission or presumption of guilt but also should not provide immunity from all consequences. The dismissal in question, he contended, was due to Dr. Slochower’s refusal to answer questions about his past Communist affiliations rather than any inferred guilt from pleading the Fifth Amendment; thus it did not violate his constitutional rights. Furthermore, Justice Reed emphasized that public employees have a responsibility to cooperate with investigations into their fitness for service and failure to do so could justifiably result in termination.