United States v. Burchard was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense. The defendant, Burchard, was charged with the crime of selling liquor without a license. The indictment failed to allege that the defendant had knowledge of the illegality of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was sufficient to sustain a conviction, even though it did not allege knowledge of the illegality of the sale. The Court reasoned that knowledge of the illegality of the sale was not an essential element of the offense, and that the defendant could be convicted without it. The Court also held that the defendant could not be convicted of a greater offense than that charged in the indictment. This case established the principle that a defendant can be convicted of a crime even if the indictment does not allege an essential element of the offense, as long as the defendant is not convicted of a greater offense than that charged in the indictment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Burchard, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law criminalizing the sale of adulterated drugs. He argued that it was not within Congress' power to regulate commerce or protect public health and safety, as these were matters for states to decide upon. Furthermore, he argued that if such laws were allowed then there would be no limit on what kind of legislation could be passed by Congress under its Commerce Clause powers. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that "the power assumed [by this act] is one which has never been delegated either expressly or impliedly." In other words, he believed the law went beyond what was granted to Congress in terms of regulating interstate commerce and should have been left up to individual state governments instead.