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 indictment was not returned within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court held that the defendant could not be convicted of the crime if the indictment was not returned within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations. The case arose when the defendant, Bradley, was indicted for a crime that was alleged to have been committed more than three years prior to the indictment. The applicable statute of limitations provided that an indictment must be returned within three years of the commission of the crime. Bradley argued that the indictment was not returned within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, he could not be convicted of the crime. The Supreme Court agreed with Bradley and held that the indictment was not returned within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, he could not be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was intended to protect defendants from being prosecuted for crimes that were committed long ago and that the defendant should not be punished for the government's failure to return the indictment within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bradley v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for the taxation of income from government bonds. He argued that such a tax was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which states "No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law." Justice Field further argued that since this law imposed an additional burden on those who held government bonds after they were issued, it constituted an ex post facto law and should be declared invalid by the Court. Additionally, he noted that if Congress could impose taxes on income derived from these bonds then there was nothing stopping them from taxing other forms of property as well. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing this type of taxation would lead to arbitrary and oppressive laws being passed by Congress without regard for constitutional limits.