In the case of Perrin v. United States, 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting the Travel Act's definition of "bribery." The defendants were convicted for bribing a state official to obtain favorable treatment in securing insurance business from a state agency. They argued that their actions did not constitute bribery under federal law because it only applied to situations involving public officials and not private individuals or businesses. However, the court disagreed and upheld their convictions by ruling that federal law does encompass such conduct within its definition of bribery. The majority opinion stated that when Congress enacted this legislation in 1961, it intended to include all forms of bribery recognized at common law - both those involving public officials as well as private entities or persons. Therefore, any act designed to influence an individual (public official or otherwise) in his/her decision-making capacity through illicit means would be considered bribery under this statute. This landmark decision expanded the scope and reach of federal anti-bribery laws beyond just corruption among public officials but also into areas traditionally regulated by states like commercial transactions between private parties.

In the dissenting opinion for Perrin v. United States, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's interpretation of the Travel Act was too broad and not consistent with its original intent. He contended that when Congress passed this law in 1961, it intended to target organized crime and interstate racketeering activities rather than individual acts of bribery as seen in this case. The term "bribery" used in the statute should be understood within its specific context related to these types of criminal enterprises, he suggested. Therefore, applying it to a state official who accepted bribes but did not engage in any form of organized crime or racketeering activity would stretch beyond what Congress had originally envisioned for this legislation.