In McNally v. United States (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal mail fraud statute does not cover schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights, such as the right to honest government. The case involved Kentucky officials who had arranged a scheme where an insurance company would give commissions to another company they owned in exchange for state business contracts. While lower courts found them guilty under mail fraud statutes, arguing they deprived citizens of "honest services," the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that these statutes were intended solely for protecting property rights and did not extend to intangible rights like honest governance.

In the dissenting opinion for McNally v. United States, Justice White argued that the majority's interpretation of the mail fraud statute was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent when enacting it. He contended that public officials owe a fiduciary duty to their constituents and any scheme designed to defraud citizens of their right to honest government should fall under this law. The majority’s decision, he believed, would allow corrupt officials who had not personally profited from their actions but instead directed benefits towards third parties, escape punishment under federal law. Furthermore, Justice White expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially undermine previous convictions obtained under similar circumstances as well as hinder future prosecutions against political corruption.