In Hammerschmidt et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not defendants' actions constituted a conspiracy to defraud the U.S government under criminal law. The defendants were charged with conspiring to impede and impair the functions of government departments by encouraging draft evasion during World War I through their organization, "The League for Constitutional Government." They argued that they merely sought to change existing laws rather than obstruct governmental operations unlawfully. The court held that advocating changes in policy or law is not tantamount to an intent to defeat the execution of those laws; thus, it does not constitute a conspiracy against them unless there's evidence showing such intentions clearly beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, mere open defiance isn't enough proof without further context indicating an actual intention towards obstruction. Justice Holmes delivered this opinion stating that political agitation as carried out by these defendants was still within legal bounds and didn't amount to fraud against the government just because its effects might indirectly lead some people into breaking current laws while seeking their alteration or abolition.

In the dissenting opinion for Hammerschmidt et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the defendants' actions did not constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States government as defined under criminal law. The justices contended that while the defendants may have sought to obstruct or impede governmental functions through their anti-draft activities during World War I, they did not aim to cheat the government out of property or money and thus could not be found guilty of fraud. They further emphasized that interpreting "defraud" too broadly would risk infringing upon citizens' First Amendment rights and potentially criminalize any form of protest against government policies or actions.