In Levinson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who had been convicted of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant, Mr. Levinson, argued that his conviction should be overturned because he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine one of the government's key witnesses against him - a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. However, the court disagreed and upheld his conviction stating that while defendants do have a right to confront their accusers under normal circumstances; this does not apply when they are being tried for perjury committed during previous proceedings where they were also granted full confrontation rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Levinson v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute regarding false claims against the government. He argued that it was not Congress' intent to punish individuals who made false claims but did not actually receive any money or property from the government as a result. Instead, he believed that Congress intended to penalize those who successfully defrauded the government and received payment based on their fraudulent actions. Therefore, in his view, because Levinson had not received any money or property from his false claim before being caught and prosecuted, he should not be held liable under this law.