In the 1916 case Ex Parte United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge does not have the authority to suspend or reduce a criminal sentence once it has been imposed and entered into court record, unless new evidence is presented or there are other exceptional circumstances. The decision was based on an interpretation of Section 709 of Title VII in relation to suspended sentences. This ruling came about after Judge Wilkerson had sentenced two men for illegally selling liquor on Native American territory but later attempted to suspend their sentences due to health concerns. The government petitioned against this suspension arguing that once a sentence is passed, it cannot be changed without specific legal provisions allowing such changes.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte United States, 1916, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a petition by federal prosecutors seeking to increase sentences for two convicted criminals. He argued that judges should have discretion in sentencing and that this power should not be limited by procedural rules or precedents. According to Holmes, if a judge believes that he has made an error in passing sentence or feels compelled by new evidence or circumstances to reconsider his initial judgment, he should be allowed to do so within reasonable limits of time and fairness. The justice also expressed concern about potential abuses of judicial authority but maintained that these risks were outweighed by the need for flexibility and responsiveness in criminal sentencing procedures.