In the 1903 case of Binns v. United States, John Binns was convicted for using U.S. mail to defraud individuals by selling counterfeit coins and appealed his conviction on the basis that he had not been allowed to introduce evidence in his defense during trial. The Supreme Court ruled against him, upholding his conviction. The court found that while a defendant has a right to present witnesses in their defense, this does not extend to presenting irrelevant or immaterial testimony which would only serve as distractions from the main issue at hand - whether or not fraud occurred through use of mails for sale of counterfeit coins in this instance. Therefore, it held that there was no error made by lower courts when they refused admission of certain testimonies offered by Binns' counsel since these were deemed irrelevant and immaterial.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of BINNS v. UNITED STATES, Justice Harlan argued that Binns' conviction was unjust because he had not committed a crime against any law of Congress. He believed that Binns was merely exercising his right to free speech by publishing an article criticizing President McKinley's administration and its handling of the Spanish-American War. According to Justice Harlan, this did not constitute "libelous or defamatory" content as defined by federal law at the time. Furthermore, he contended that it is within every citizen's constitutional rights to criticize their government without fear of punishment or reprisal unless such criticism incites violence or poses a clear threat to national security - neither of which were applicable in this case according to him. Therefore, Justice Harlan concluded that Binns' conviction should be overturned on grounds of unconstitutional suppression of freedom of speech.