In Bradford v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a defendant could be convicted for using mail to defraud when the victims were not deceived by his actions but still suffered financial loss. The case involved William J. Bradford, who was charged with mailing fraudulent statements to induce people into investing in his company's stock and bonds under false pretenses. He argued that since no one was actually deceived or misled by these statements, he should not be found guilty of fraud. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld Bradford's conviction on all counts. They ruled that even if nobody believed the misleading information sent through mail, it is still illegal because it has potential to deceive someone else who might receive such communication later on; hence causing harm indirectly as well. This decision established an important precedent in American law regarding fraud cases: It is not necessary for deception to occur or for there to be actual damage done - merely attempting deception can constitute fraud.

In the dissenting opinion for Bradford v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute related to liquor sales in Alaska. He argued that the law should be interpreted as it was written and not expanded beyond its original intent. The statute prohibited selling alcohol "to an Indian," but did not specify whether this applied only to Indians living on reservations or all Native Americans regardless of where they lived. Holmes believed that Congress intended for the prohibition to apply only within reservation boundaries, given their historical context and purpose - protecting indigenous populations from exploitation by non-Indigenous people who might sell them alcohol at inflated prices or use it as a tool of manipulation. Therefore, he contended that since Bradford sold whiskey off-reservation (though still in Alaska), his actions were outside the scope of what Congress sought to prevent through this legislation and thus should not have been considered illegal under federal law.