In the 1933 case Burroughs and Cannon v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving violations of federal election laws. The defendants, Burroughs and Cannon, were charged with conspiring to defraud the United States by not complying with statutory requirements for reporting campaign contributions and expenditures during a senatorial primary election in North Carolina. They argued that these statutes did not apply to primary elections but only general elections; they also claimed that their actions didn't constitute fraud against the U.S government as defined by law. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with both arguments made by Burroughs and Cannon. It held that federal election laws applied to all stages of an electoral process including primaries if it results in selecting a candidate for Congress or President/Vice-President regardless of whether state law considers them part of its official electoral machinery or not; thus affirming their convictions under those statutes was valid. Additionally, it found that any conspiracy aimed at impairing or obstructing lawful governmental functions is considered fraudulent activity against the U.S., even if there's no financial loss involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Burroughs and Cannon v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law regarding election fraud. He argued that Congress did not intend to regulate every detail of political party management at a national level when it passed legislation against corrupt practices in elections. The justice believed that such an expansive reading of the statute would lead to excessive federal intrusion into state affairs, undermining principles of federalism and states' rights. Furthermore, he contended that this broad interpretation could potentially criminalize minor administrative errors made by campaign workers who were unaware they were violating any laws. Thus, he concluded that only actions explicitly mentioned as illegal under the Corrupt Practices Act should be considered violations thereof.