In Wilkinson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that a witness who refuses to answer questions before a congressional committee can be convicted for contempt of Congress even if they were not explicitly warned about potential prosecution. The case involved Lloyd Barenblatt, a university professor subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee and asked about his alleged Communist affiliations. He refused to answer on First Amendment grounds but was found guilty of contempt of Congress because he had been given ample opportunity to consult with legal counsel and knew refusing could lead to punishment. In its decision, the court maintained that it is not necessary for witnesses appearing before Congressional committees to receive explicit warnings regarding criminal prosecution for refusal to testify.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilkinson v. United States, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated the First Amendment rights of a witness who refused to answer questions from a congressional committee on grounds of self-incrimination. He contended that Congress had no constitutional authority to investigate private affairs or beliefs unless it was directly related to legislative tasks. Furthermore, he believed that punishing someone for refusing to disclose their political affiliations and activities infringed upon their freedom of speech and assembly as protected by the First Amendment. In his view, this case represented an overreach by Congress into personal liberties which could lead towards totalitarianism if left unchecked.