In the 1910 Supreme Court case Faber v. United States, the court examined whether a person could be convicted for perjury if they lied under oath during an investigation that was not authorized by Congress. The defendant, Mr. Faber, had given false testimony in front of a special examiner from the Department of Interior who was investigating land patents in California. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because this investigator did not have legal authority to administer oaths or conduct investigations as he was appointed by an executive order rather than through congressional legislation. The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Faber's argument and upheld his conviction for perjury. They ruled that while it is true Congress has exclusive power to define and punish crimes against the United States, this does not mean every detail regarding enforcement must come directly from them; some powers can be delegated to other branches or officials within government so long as there are sufficient guidelines provided by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Faber v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of law and precedent. The justice believed that Faber should not have been convicted because he did not knowingly commit fraud or intend to deceive anyone with his actions. He pointed out that there was no evidence presented at trial proving beyond reasonable doubt that Faber had any fraudulent intent when he made false statements about his assets during bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, the dissenting judge disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted federal bankruptcy laws in this case, arguing it could potentially criminalize innocent mistakes made by debtors during bankruptcy filings which would be against principles of fairness and due process rights under U.S Constitution.