In the 1932 case United States v. Burroughs and James Cannon, Jr., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute making it illegal to conspire to defraud the United States applied not only to financial fraud but also to efforts aimed at interfering with or obstructing lawful government functions. The defendants in this case were Bishop James Cannon, Jr., of the Methodist Episcopal Church South and Ada L. Burroughs, his secretary. They were charged with conspiring to violate federal election laws by failing to report campaign contributions during a Senate race in North Carolina in 1928 where they campaigned against Al Smith due largely because he was Catholic and supported ending prohibition on alcohol sales which they opposed as Protestant leaders who favored Prohibition.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Burroughs and James Cannon, Jr., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold the convictions of Burroughs and Cannon was incorrect because it expanded federal jurisdiction over elections in a way not intended by Congress. He contended that while Congress has authority to regulate federal elections, this power does not extend to primary elections or party nominations unless explicitly stated in legislation. The law under which they were convicted only referred to "elections," without specifying primaries or nominations; therefore, he believed it should be interpreted narrowly as applying only to general elections where public officers are actually chosen. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between state laws regarding primaries and national election laws, suggesting potential conflicts if such broad interpretation is accepted. Lastly, he warned against criminalizing political activities based on vague legal standards which could potentially infringe upon free speech rights protected by First Amendment.