In the 1942 case United States et al. v. Johnson, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a member of Congress could not be prosecuted for an alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States by agreeing to perform legislative acts in return for money. The court held that Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution (the Speech or Debate Clause) provided immunity from prosecution for any speech or debate in either House of Congress and extended this protection to other "legislative acts". In this case, former Representative Newell Sanders was accused of accepting bribes while serving on a committee investigating war frauds during World War I. However, his actions were deemed part of his legislative duties and thus he was immune from prosecution under the Speech or Debate Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Johnson, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(a) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was too narrow and failed to consider its broader implications. He contended that by focusing solely on whether or not a statement about alcohol was false or misleading, they overlooked other potential harms such as statements encouraging excessive drinking. Furthermore, he disagreed with their assertion that Congress did not intend to regulate truthful advertising under this act, pointing out that it had done so in similar legislation concerning tobacco products. Finally, he warned against setting a precedent where commercial speech could be protected at the expense of public health and safety interests.