In the United States v. Archer case of 1915, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to conspiracy and fraud against the government. The defendants were charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. by submitting false claims for payment through a scheme involving fraudulent contracts for Panama Canal construction supplies. They argued that they could not be prosecuted because their actions did not directly harm or intend to harm any specific individual within the government; instead, it was directed at an abstract entity - "the Government". However, Justice Holmes rejected this argument stating that when one conspires to defraud a governmental body out of money or property, it is still considered as intending direct injury upon individuals who make up that body (taxpayers). Therefore, he concluded that such acts are prosecutable under existing laws against conspiracy and fraud.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Archer, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent actions. The dissenting justices believed that there should be a clear distinction between lawful and unlawful acts under this statute, which they felt had been blurred by the majority's decision. They also disagreed with how evidence was handled in this case, arguing that certain pieces of evidence were improperly admitted or excluded during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential violations of due process rights as a result of these evidentiary issues and broader legal interpretations made by the court.