In the case of Russell et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1928 that a tenant could not be convicted for conspiracy to violate Prohibition laws based solely on their lease agreement with a landlord who was illegally manufacturing alcohol on the property. The defendants were tenants who had leased land and buildings where an illegal distillery was operating, but they claimed no knowledge or involvement in this operation. The government argued that by leasing the premises, they were enabling and conspiring in its unlawful use. However, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote for the majority stating there must be clear evidence of intent to conspire beyond just providing means or opportunity for crime commission through such legal acts as leasing property.

In the dissenting opinion for Russell et al. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on conspiracy charges was flawed due to insufficient evidence of an actual agreement between parties involved in alleged illegal activities related to bootlegging during Prohibition era. The dissent emphasized that mere association or knowledge of criminal activity is not enough proof of conspiracy under federal law; there must be clear and convincing evidence demonstrating a mutual understanding or agreement among conspirators towards committing an unlawful act. Furthermore, they contended that the government failed to provide such compelling evidence in this case, thus making the convictions unjustifiable and erroneous according to principles of justice and fairness embodied within American legal system.