In Meyer v. United States (1963), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an employee of the federal government who was seeking compensation for overtime work. The plaintiff, Meyer, had been employed by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in Alaska and claimed that he worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving proper overtime pay as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, his employer argued that since they were part of a branch of military service during wartime, they were exempt from FLSA regulations. The Supreme Court sided with Meyer's employer stating that while FLSA does apply to most federal employees; there are exceptions including "any individual employed by the United States...that is: (1) A civilian employee in military departments...as defined in section 102 of Title 5." Therefore, because Mr. Meyer was working for a branch considered part of military service during wartime - even though it wasn't directly involved in combat or defense activities - he fell within this exception and thus not entitled to overtime pay under FLSA.

In the dissenting opinion for Meyer v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 641 of Title 18 went beyond its intended scope and criminalized behavior not originally meant to be covered by this statute. The dissent emphasized that the law was designed to prevent theft or conversion of government property, but in this case, no such act had occurred as Meyer did not steal any physical object from his employer - he merely shared information about a patent application with another party. It was also pointed out that there were other more appropriate laws under which Meyer could have been prosecuted if his actions were indeed illegal. Furthermore, it was suggested that expanding Section 641 in such a way could potentially lead to an overreach where employees might be criminally liable for innocuous acts like sharing office gossip or revealing non-sensitive business practices.