In Moore v. United States (1918), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of federal law regarding hunting migratory birds. The defendant, John L. Moore, had been convicted for violating this law in Arkansas by killing certain wild fowl during closed season and was appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court. He argued that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate such activity because it did not involve interstate commerce. The court rejected this argument and upheld Moore's conviction, ruling that protection of migratory birds is indeed within Congress' power under the Commerce Clause due to their migration across state lines. This decision established an important precedent for broad interpretation of Congressional powers related to environmental regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's conviction should be upheld. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "conspiracy to defraud" in this case as requiring a monetary or property loss to the government. Instead, he believed that any conspiracy which interferes with or obstructs lawful government functions constitutes fraud against the U.S., even if it does not result in financial harm. In his view, by conspiring to unlawfully sell liquor on an Indian reservation and thereby undermining federal law enforcement efforts, Moore had indeed conspired to defraud America regardless of whether there was tangible damage done. Thus, Holmes felt that overturning Moore’s conviction based on lack of proven material harm was erroneous and set a dangerous precedent.