In the case of Perrin v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal law that made it illegal to transport women across state lines for "immoral purposes" applied when both parties consented and were married. The defendant, Mr. Perrin, had been convicted under this law after he took his wife from Missouri to Arkansas with the intention of forcing her into prostitution. He appealed on grounds that since they were married and she consented, no crime was committed. The Supreme Court disagreed with Perrin's argument and upheld his conviction in 1913. They ruled that marriage did not exempt someone from prosecution under this law nor did mutual consent make any difference as long as immoral purpose is involved in transportation across states' borders; thus affirming Congress's power to regulate such activities through its authority over interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Perrin v. United States argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an improper jury instruction. The dissent believed that it was incorrect for the trial judge to instruct jurors they could infer guilt from a refusal to testify, as this infringed upon the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. They contended that such an instruction effectively penalized a defendant for exercising their constitutional rights and placed undue pressure on them to testify, which is contrary to established legal principles and protections. Furthermore, they held that any inference drawn from silence should be left entirely up to individual jurors without guidance or suggestion from court officials.