In the United States v. Murdock case of 1933, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant could be convicted for refusing to provide information that might incriminate him in violation of federal law. The defendant, Murdock, was charged with willfully failing to supply information about his income tax returns as required by law. He argued that he had a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment not to provide any information that could potentially incriminate him. Initially, lower courts found Murdock guilty but upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and sided with Murdock's argument based on self-incrimination grounds protected by the Fifth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Murdock, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Murdock's conviction for refusing to provide information on his income tax return due to self-incrimination fears. He argued that a person cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions in any proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings. He contended that this protection should extend even if it is uncertain whether such incrimination may occur. Furthermore, he believed that federal and state governments should not be able to force individuals into a position of choosing between perjury charges or admitting guilt of an offense punishable by law under either jurisdiction. Thus, he felt strongly that Murdock was within his rights when he refused to answer certain questions on his income tax return based upon fear of potential self-incrimination.