In the United States v. Norris case in 1929, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a defendant could be convicted for perjury if they refused to answer questions during a grand jury investigation. The defendant, George W. Norris, was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice after refusing to answer certain questions during an investigation into alleged antitrust violations by several oil companies. He argued that his refusal to answer should have been protected under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The court disagreed with Norris' argument and upheld his conviction stating that while individuals do have a right against self-incrimination, this does not extend to simply refusing to respond at all when questioned under oath before a grand jury. Instead, it requires them to claim this privilege specifically in response each question where they believe answering truthfully would incriminate themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Norris, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that the defendant's conviction should be upheld. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, which prohibited price discrimination to lessen competition or create a monopoly. The majority held that this section only applied if there was an intent to harm competition and not merely when such harm occurred as a result of normal business operations. However, Holmes believed that it was enough if one intended to do what he did and knew or could reasonably foresee its probable consequences - in this case, lessening competition or creating a monopoly. He also emphasized that Congress had broad powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate trade among states and prevent unfair practices affecting interstate commerce.