In the 1932 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 after it has been imposed and entered into court records unless new evidence is presented. The decision came about when Judge Wilkerson of an Illinois district court suspended fines against two corporations convicted of antitrust violations, arguing that he had inherent power to do so under common law principles. However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that such powers are limited by statutory laws and cannot be exercised at will by judges. This case established important precedents regarding judicial discretion in sentencing matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte United States, 1932, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a federal judge to suspend a criminal sentence without the consent of the government. He argued that this power was not granted by Congress and therefore should not be assumed by judges. According to him, such an action would undermine public confidence in judicial decisions and could lead to abuses of discretion. Furthermore, he contended that it is inappropriate for courts to interfere with executive powers unless explicitly authorized by law or constitutionally required. In his view, allowing judges unfettered discretion over sentencing suspensions would blur separation of powers principles and potentially infringe upon prosecutorial prerogatives.