In Rodgers v. United States (1947), the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government required an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy, as stipulated by federal law at the time. The appellant, Rodgers, had been convicted on two counts: one for attempting to evade income tax and another for conspiring to do so. While there was no dispute over his guilt on the first count, he argued that his conviction on the second should be overturned because it lacked evidence of an overt act - a requirement under common law but not explicitly stated in relevant statute. The court ruled 5-3 against Rodgers' appeal stating that while some crimes require proof of an overt act beyond mere agreement between parties involved in a conspiracy; this is not universally true and depends upon legislative intent behind each specific criminal statute. In this case, they found no such requirement within legislation defining crime of defrauding government hence upheld lower courts’ decision.

In the dissenting opinion for Rodgers v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 346(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this section should not be interpreted to mean that a person who has declared their intention to become a U.S citizen and then served honorably in World War II is automatically deemed to have been granted citizenship. They contended that such an interpretation would render other sections of the act meaningless and redundant, as these sections outline specific procedures for naturalization which include more than just military service. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this case and previous cases where individuals were denied citizenship despite having served in World War I or II because they did not meet all requirements outlined by law.