In the 1940 case Nye et al. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court ruled on whether a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government could be prosecuted even if no actual harm was done to it, and whether such a prosecution violated defendants' rights under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The case involved two men who were accused of conspiring with Senator Burton K. Wheeler to influence federal agencies in favor of their clients for financial gain, but without causing any loss or damage to those agencies or the government as a whole. The court held that an agreement intending fraud is punishable by law regardless of its success or failure, thus affirming that there need not be actual injury for one to conspire against public justice system; intent alone suffices as ground for punishment under criminal law statutes regarding conspiracy. Furthermore, they determined that this did not violate double jeopardy protections because each charge -conspiracy and completed offense- are distinct crimes requiring different evidence despite arising from same act(s). This ruling set precedent in American jurisprudence concerning interpretation and application of laws related to conspiracy charges.

In the dissenting opinion for Nye et al. v. United States et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold convictions based on a conspiracy charge was flawed, as it relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and speculation rather than concrete proof of guilt. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had conspired to defraud the government by manipulating bids for public contracts, which he believed should be necessary in order to secure a conviction under federal law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power and miscarriages of justice resulting from overzealous prosecution or misinterpretation of vague laws regarding conspiracy charges.