In the 1988 case Schmuck v. United States, petitioner Wayne T. Schmuck was convicted of mail fraud after he rolled back odometers on used cars and sold them to car dealerships who then unknowingly misrepresented the mileage to their customers. The Supreme Court had to decide whether each mailing in furtherance of a scheme constituted an offense or if only one count could be charged for the entire scheme, as well as whether Schmuck's actions were part of a "scheme or artifice to defraud" under federal law. The court ruled that each separate use of mails that furthers the fraudulent scheme can constitute an offense and upheld his conviction on all counts. They also found that rolling back odometers did indeed fall within a "scheme or artifice to defraud". This decision clarified how mail fraud statutes should be interpreted regarding ongoing schemes involving multiple uses of postal services.

In the dissenting opinion for Schmuck v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of mail fraud statute was overly broad and inconsistent with its historical understanding. He contended that the court should have adhered to a narrower definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud" which would require proof of falsehoods being made about material facts, not simply dishonesty in business dealings. In this case, he believed there were no false statements made by Schmuck regarding his tampering with car odometers; instead it was more akin to an undisclosed breach of duty - something traditionally outside the scope of mail fraud statutes according to him. Furthermore, he criticized how broadly construed interpretations could potentially criminalize a wide range of unethical behavior under federal law without clear legislative intent supporting such expansion.