In the 1912 case of Breese and Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal law that made it illegal for railroad companies to provide free transportation to members of Congress was constitutional. The appellants, two employees of different railway companies, were indicted for giving free passes to congressmen in violation of this law. They argued that the statute violated their Fifth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process and also infringed upon their First Amendment right to petition government officials. The court rejected these arguments and upheld the constitutionality of the legislation. It ruled that providing free rail travel could potentially corrupt or unduly influence lawmakers' decisions about matters affecting railroads; therefore, prohibiting such practices served a legitimate public interest which outweighed any potential infringement on individual rights. Furthermore, it held that there were other ways for individuals or corporations like railways to communicate with legislators without resorting to offering them gifts or favors.

In the dissenting opinion for Breese and Dickerson v. United States, 1912, it was argued that the defendants' constitutional rights were violated due to an improper jury instruction. The Justice believed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury they could convict based on a presumption of guilt from possession of recently stolen property alone, without direct evidence linking them to theft or receipt of stolen goods. This presumption shifted burden onto defendants to prove their innocence rather than requiring prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - a fundamental principle underpinning American criminal justice system. The dissent also expressed concern over potential misuse of circumstantial evidence which might lead innocent people into unjust convictions if not carefully scrutinized by courts.