In the 1902 case of Francis v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving fraudulent claims against the government. The defendant, Mr. Francis, was accused of making false claims to obtain money from the U.S Treasury Department by submitting fake vouchers for payment for services that were never rendered. He appealed his conviction arguing that he had been tried in a district where he did not commit any part of his offense and thus violated his constitutional rights under Article III and Amendment VI which stipulate trial location should be in state/district where crime occurred. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Francis's conviction stating that while it is true crimes must generally be tried in districts they are committed, this principle does not apply when offenses involve acts occurring across multiple jurisdictions or when dealing with certain types of frauds against federal agencies like those involved here - obtaining money through false pretenses from U.S Treasury Department can occur anywhere as long as there is intent to defraud and steps taken towards achieving this end.

In the dissenting opinion for Francis v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of justice. He contended that a person should not be convicted based on evidence obtained through illegal means, in this case, an unlawful search and seizure. The government had violated Francis' Fourth Amendment rights by searching his home without a warrant or probable cause. Harlan believed that allowing such evidence to stand would undermine citizens' constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he asserted that it is irrelevant whether the illegally seized evidence is reliable; its admission into court fundamentally contradicts due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding Francis' conviction.