In the 1942 case Anderson et al. v. United States, a group of individuals were convicted for conspiring to defraud the U.S government by impeding and impairing its lawful governmental functions through deceitful means. The defendants argued that their indictment was not specific enough in detailing how they conspired to commit fraud, thus violating their rights under the Sixth Amendment which guarantees an accused party's right to be informed about charges against them. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling that while an indictment must indeed state all elements of a crime it does not need to provide detailed evidence or facts proving those elements - only sufficient information so as not mislead or surprise defendants in preparation of defense is required. Furthermore, it held that any conspiracy aimed at obstructing legitimate government function is illegal even if no property loss occurred. This decision upheld broad interpretation of federal power over criminal conspiracies involving fraudulent activities directed at interfering with governmental operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson et al. v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the defendants' convictions should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving their intent to defraud or conspire against the government. He emphasized that mere association with an organization advocating overthrow of the government is not sufficient proof of guilt without clear evidence showing active participation in illegal activities or conspiracy. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential violation of First Amendment rights and warned about setting dangerous precedents where individuals could be convicted based on their beliefs rather than actions. He also criticized majority's interpretation and application of statutory language which he believed was overly broad and vague, potentially leading to unjust outcomes.