In the 1902 case of Dreyer v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a conviction for embezzlement against Charles Dreyer, an officer in a fraternal organization known as Modern Woodmen of America. The court ruled that his actions constituted embezzlement under Illinois state law even though he had not personally profited from them. Dreyer was accused of diverting funds from the organization to pay off its debts without proper authorization and was convicted by lower courts before appealing to the Supreme Court on grounds that his actions did not meet legal definitions of embezzlement since he didn't directly benefit financially from them. However, Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered an opinion stating that personal gain is not necessary for someone's actions to be considered embezzlement; it can also include instances where one wrongfully appropriates another’s property entrusted to their care or control.

In the dissenting opinion for Dreyer v. Illinois, it was argued that the state of Illinois did not have jurisdiction over a crime committed on Lake Michigan because the lake is considered federal territory. The dissenting justices believed that only Congress had authority to legislate and enforce laws in this area, based on its constitutional power to regulate commerce among states. They contended that if each state bordering such bodies of water could exercise criminal jurisdiction within their respective boundaries, it would lead to confusion and potential conflicts between states' laws. This view held that uniformity in law enforcement across these waters can only be achieved through federal control, thus maintaining peace and order more effectively than individual states acting independently.