In Gorin v. United States (1940), the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Mikhail Gorin and his wife, Helen for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by selling information about Japanese activities to Soviet Union agents. The defendants argued that they did not know their actions were illegal because the law was too vague in defining what constituted national defense information. However, Justice Stanley Reed wrote for a unanimous court that "the obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to injure" America or aid foreign nations. Thus, if someone had such an intention when obtaining related data, then he/she should have known it would harm U.S interests and benefit other countries' interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Gorin v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the Espionage Act of 1917 was too vague and broad in its definition of what constituted illegal transmission of information related to national defense. He believed this lack of clarity could potentially criminalize innocent acts or conversations about public matters, infringing on citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech. Furthermore, he contended that it was unreasonable to expect individuals without specialized knowledge or training in military affairs to accurately discern whether certain pieces of information could be harmful if disclosed. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's decision upholding Mr. Gorin's conviction under this law.