In the United States v. Bennett case of 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning customs duties and importation laws. The defendant, Bennett, had imported diamonds into the U.S., declaring them as uncut when they were in fact cut but not set. Uncut diamonds carried a lower duty rate than cut ones at that time. Upon discovery by customs officials, he was charged with smuggling under section 28 of the Act of August 5th, 1909 which made it illegal to knowingly submit false statements to custom officers regarding imported goods' value or nature. Bennett argued that his actions did not constitute smuggling since there was no intent to defraud because both types of diamonds - whether cut or uncut - were subject to duty fees anyway. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld his conviction for smuggling stating that any act intended to deceive an officer in relation to dutiable merchandise is considered fraudulent regardless if there would have been no loss suffered by government due its eventual collection of appropriate duties upon detection.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bennett, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned because he was not given a fair trial. He believed that the jury had been improperly influenced by prejudicial statements made by the prosecution during closing arguments, which were unrelated to any evidence presented at trial and served only to inflame their passions against Bennett. Furthermore, Holmes contended that these inflammatory remarks constituted reversible error because they deprived Bennett of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury trial. The justice also disagreed with majority’s interpretation of federal law regarding mail fraud, arguing it was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent conduct. In essence, Justice Holmes' dissent focused on upholding due process rights and maintaining strict boundaries in legal interpretations.