In the 1932 case of United States v. Acme Operating Corp., et al., the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over oil and gas leases on public lands. The government had leased certain Oklahoma land to Acme, which then assigned its rights to another company, Marland Oil Company. However, when it was discovered that there were errors in the original lease documents regarding descriptions of land parcels, new leases were issued correcting these mistakes but also including additional terms not present in the initial agreement. Marland refused to accept these changes and continued operations under their understanding of the original lease agreements. The U.S Government sued both companies for trespassing on public lands due to this refusal. In response, Acme and Marland argued they held valid leases based on their interpretation of initial contracts before corrections were made by subsequent ones. The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that since they did not comply with all terms included in corrected versions of leases (which superseded previous ones), they could be considered as trespassers from date those revised contracts became effective.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Acme Operating Corp case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the government was flawed. The dissenters believed that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual agreement existed between defendants, which is necessary for a conspiracy charge under federal law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "fraud" against the government, arguing it should be limited only to cases involving financial loss or harm and not expanded broadly as done by majority ruling. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential abuse of power by prosecutors who could use such broad interpretations of fraud laws against innocent parties involved in complex business transactions with governmental entities.