In Pendleton v. United States (1909), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of an act passed by Congress in 1891, which allowed for appeals to be made directly from district courts to the Supreme Court in cases where constitutionality was questioned. The appellant, Pendleton, had been convicted of embezzlement and appealed his conviction on constitutional grounds. However, he did not file his appeal within the time frame stipulated by law because he believed that another statute gave him additional time to do so. The court held that this other statute did not apply and therefore dismissed Pendleton's appeal as untimely filed under existing laws at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Pendleton v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent actions. He contended that a person who receives money from another should not be automatically assumed to have committed bribery unless there is clear evidence of corrupt intent or an explicit agreement between both parties. According to him, it would be unjust to convict someone based on mere suspicion or conjecture without concrete proof of wrongdoing. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by prosecutors who might use this expansive definition of bribery as a tool for political persecution or personal vendetta against their enemies. In his view, such an approach undermines fundamental principles of fairness and due process in our legal system.