In the United States v. Ferguson et al., 1917, the Supreme Court dealt with a case concerning conspiracy to defraud the government by obstructing its functions and operations. The defendants were charged with conspiring to prevent enforcement of federal liquor laws in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). They allegedly bribed officials and provided protection for illegal distilleries. The defense argued that since no specific law was identified as being violated, there could be no conviction for conspiracy to defraud. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that it is not necessary to specify which laws are being obstructed in a charge of conspiracy to defraud; rather it's enough if they conspire so as "to impede or defeat" any governmental function through fraudulent means. Therefore, even without specifying which particular law was violated by their actions, they can still be held liable for their intent and action towards hindering government operation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ferguson et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the defendants' actions did not constitute a conspiracy to defraud the government, as charged under Section 37 of the Penal Code. He believed that their scheme was designed to deceive private individuals rather than governmental entities and thus should not fall within this statute's purview. According to Holmes, while it is true that they used mail fraudulently, which is indeed illegal, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of 'defrauding' in this context since there was no direct harm or loss inflicted on any federal entity due to their fraudulent activities; hence he opined it does not amount to conspiring against U.S Government per se. Furthermore, he emphasized his belief in limiting criminal law strictly according its letter and spirit without stretching interpretations beyond what lawmakers intended originally.