In the United States v. Cohn case of 1925, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy law and fraudulent conveyance. The defendant, Cohn, was accused of fraudulently transferring property to his wife in order to evade paying creditors following a declaration of bankruptcy. The lower court had found in favor of the plaintiff (the U.S.), but this decision was reversed by an appellate court which held that such transfers were not illegal under state law unless made with intent to defraud creditors. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate ruling and reinstated the original verdict against Cohn. It argued that federal bankruptcy laws superseded any conflicting state laws regarding fraudulent conveyances during insolvency proceedings; hence it did not matter whether or not such actions were considered legal under local legislation if they violated national statutes. This landmark decision established important precedents for future cases involving similar issues: namely, that federal courts have jurisdiction over matters related to bankruptcies regardless of individual state laws and can therefore penalize individuals who attempt to defraud their creditors through dishonest means.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Cohn case argued that the majority's decision to uphold Cohn's conviction for perjury was incorrect because it relied on an overly broad interpretation of what constituted a "material" statement under federal law. The dissent contended that not every false statement made during a judicial proceeding should be considered material and thus subject to perjury charges. Instead, they believed that only those statements which could have potentially influenced the outcome of the proceeding should qualify as material. In this particular case, they did not believe Cohn's false statements met this standard, arguing instead that his lies were irrelevant to the final judgment and therefore should not have resulted in a perjury conviction.