The Norris v. United States case in 1921 revolved around the issue of whether or not a defendant's constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted based on evidence obtained through wiretapping. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of such evidence did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor did it infringe upon the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision upheld Norris' conviction for conspiracy to defraud the government by using mail fraud to sell fraudulent oil leases. The court reasoned that since there was no physical intrusion into his property to obtain this information, his rights had not been violated.

In the dissenting opinion for Norris v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a conspiracy to bribe jurors could be prosecuted under federal law. He argued that there was no specific federal statute criminalizing such behavior and thus it should fall under state jurisdiction. Furthermore, he contended that if every act which might influence or affect interstate commerce were subject to federal control, then practically all aspects of life would come within its scope - an outcome he believed was not intended by Congress when they enacted legislation regulating interstate commerce. He also expressed concern about potential overreach by the Federal Government into areas traditionally governed by states' rights.