In the 1959 case Parr et al. v. United States, George Parr and others were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S government by manipulating absentee ballots in Duval County, Texas during federal elections from 1948-1954. The defendants appealed their convictions on several grounds including that they had been denied a fair trial due to pretrial publicity and that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction ruling that pretrial publicity did not necessarily prevent a fair trial unless it resulted in actual prejudice against the defendant which wasn't proven here. Furthermore, it ruled that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt about defendants' guilt as they manipulated absentee voting process through various fraudulent means such as forging signatures or altering ballot counts. Additionally, while acknowledging potential issues with mail fraud statutes being applied too broadly (as mailing was only one part of broader scheme), court held this application appropriate given clear intent by Congress for these laws to cover wide range of fraudulent activities affecting federal elections.

In the dissenting opinion for Parr et al. v. United States, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal mail fraud statutes, arguing that they were being applied too broadly in this case. He believed that these laws were intended to protect against fraudulent schemes involving money or property and should not be extended to cover intangible rights such as the right to honest government services. In his view, extending these laws in this way could potentially criminalize a wide range of political activities and infringe upon First Amendment rights. Furthermore, he argued that it was inappropriate for federal courts to intervene in local political disputes unless there was clear evidence of corruption or bribery involved.