In Fasulo v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a defendant could be convicted under federal law for transporting stolen goods across state lines if he himself had participated in the theft. The defendant argued that his actions were only punishable under state law and not subject to federal jurisdiction because he was involved in both stealing and transporting the goods. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation of the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA). It held that even though Mr. Fasulo had been involved in stealing property within one state, his subsequent transportation of those stolen goods into another state constituted a separate offense which fell within federal jurisdiction as per NSPA provisions. Thus, it upheld Mr.Fasulo's conviction on charges brought by Federal authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for FASULO v. UNITED STATES, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's interpretation of the Mann Act was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent behavior. He contended that while it is clear from its language and history that Congress intended to target commercialized vice, not private immorality, in passing this law, the majority’s ruling expanded its scope beyond what lawmakers had originally intended. The defendant's actions were morally reprehensible but did not constitute a federal crime under his understanding of the statute because he didn't transport women across state lines for prostitution or other immoral purposes as specified by law; rather he transported them with intent to marry which isn’t an illegal act per se even if done deceitfully or manipulatively.