In the United States v. Williams case of 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to tax evasion and fraud. The defendant, Claude R. Williams, was charged with attempting to defraud the government by not paying income taxes for several years. He argued that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated because he was forced to provide incriminating evidence against himself in a situation where he could be prosecuted criminally or civilly based on this evidence. The court disagreed with Williams' argument and upheld his conviction stating that providing information about one's income does not violate self-incrimination protections under the Fifth Amendment unless there is a real danger of criminal prosecution resulting from such disclosure. This ruling established an important precedent regarding taxation law and self-incrimination rights under U.S constitution: taxpayers cannot refuse to submit their tax returns out of fear they might incriminate themselves unless they are at risk of being criminally prosecuted based on those documents.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Williams, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction under the National Prohibition Act was based on an overly broad interpretation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. They contended that while Congress could prohibit transportation or importation of alcohol across state lines, it did not have authority over purely intrastate transactions such as those at issue in this case. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential abuse of federal power and encroachment on states' rights if such expansive interpretations were allowed to stand unchallenged. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that possession of liquor intended for personal use could be criminalized under federal law even when there was no evidence linking it directly to interstate commerce.