Bradley v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved a man named William Bradley, who was charged with the crime of counterfeiting. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Bradley had been in possession of counterfeit money, but the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he had actually committed the crime of counterfeiting. The Supreme Court held that Bradley could not be convicted of the crime of counterfeiting because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the prosecution had failed to prove that Bradley had actually committed the crime of counterfeiting, and that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to present any evidence that Bradley had knowledge of the counterfeit money or that he had intended to commit the crime of counterfeiting. The Court's decision in Bradley v. United States established the principle that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle has since become a cornerstone of criminal law in the United States, and it is a fundamental right that all defendants are entitled to.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bradley v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution by enacting a law which allowed for imprisonment of citizens who failed to pay taxes on their income. He argued that such laws were not authorized by any clause of the Constitution and thus violated due process rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he argued that it was wrong for Congress to pass a law which could be used as an instrument of oppression against individuals who may have difficulty paying their taxes due to poverty or other circumstances beyond their control. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a plea for greater protection from oppressive legislation enacted without constitutional authorization: "The power assumed is too vast and indefinite...It should never be forgotten that this is a government of limited powers."