In the case of Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 2004, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction for obstruction of justice in relation to its role in the Enron scandal. The court held that Judge Melinda Harmon's instructions to the jury were too vague and broad for determining whether Andersen had truly obstructed justice when it shredded documents related to its audits of Enron Corp., which later collapsed due to financial malfeasance. The ruling stated that a conviction could not be upheld if jurors believed that Andersen honestly and sincerely thought what they did was right, even if they also felt it was done with an intent to influence official proceedings. This decision underscored how crucial precise legal definitions are within criminal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, Justice Ginsburg argued that the jury instructions were not flawed and did not warrant a reversal of the conviction. She contended that Arthur Andersen had indeed persuaded employees to destroy tons of paperwork related to its client Enron Corp., in anticipation of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to her, this act constituted "corrupt persuasion" under federal law. The majority's view was too narrow because it required proof that a defendant knew their conduct violated specific criminal laws, which is rarely possible in obstruction-of-justice cases where defendants often believe they are acting within legal bounds while obstructing justice. Therefore, she disagreed with overturning Arthur Andersen’s conviction based on faulty jury instructions about what constitutes illegal document destruction.