In Steele v. United States No. 1, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Volstead Act, which provided for enforcement of Prohibition in the U.S. The defendant was convicted for possessing and selling liquor illegally under this act. However, he argued that his conviction should be overturned because one of the jurors who decided his case had expressed bias against violators of prohibition laws before trial began. He claimed this violated his right to an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with Steele's argument and upheld his conviction stating that while it is important for jurors to approach cases without preconceived notions about guilt or innocence, it does not mean they must be totally ignorant about facts related to a particular type of crime or have no opinions whatsoever regarding its seriousness or societal implications. The court held that having general views about prohibition did not necessarily make a juror biased in any specific case concerning violation of those laws; what mattered was whether such views would prevent them from deciding fairly based on evidence presented during trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Steele v. United States No. 1, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping without a warrant. He argued that this constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such evidence would encourage law enforcement officers to engage in similar unconstitutional practices in future cases, thereby undermining civil liberties more broadly. In his view, it was essential for courts to exclude any evidence obtained illegally not only as a matter of justice but also as a deterrent against potential abuses by authorities.