United States v. Gillis was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not returned within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations. The defendant, Gillis, was charged with a crime that was alleged to have been committed more than three years prior to the indictment. The applicable statute of limitations provided that no indictment could be returned more than three years after the commission of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that the defendant could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was not a bar to the prosecution of the offense, but rather a limitation on the time within which the indictment must be returned. The Court noted that the statute of limitations did not prevent the government from bringing the charge, but merely limited the time within which the indictment must be returned. The Court further noted that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the delay in the return of the indictment, as he had been aware of the charge against him since the time of the alleged offense. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that the defendant could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was not a bar to the prosecution of the offense, but merely limited the time within which the indictment must be returned. The Court further noted that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the delay in the return of the indictment.

In United States v. Gillis, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that allowed for the forfeiture of property used in violation of certain customs laws applied to vessels owned by citizens of foreign nations. The majority opinion held that it did not apply and thus reversed the decision below. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that Congress had intended for such forfeitures to be available regardless of ownership status and noting that there were no exceptions listed in the text or legislative history indicating otherwise. He further argued that allowing foreign-owned vessels to escape forfeiture would create an unfair advantage over domestic ships which could still be subject to seizure under similar circumstances. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that Congress' intent should prevail over any technicalities regarding vessel ownership when considering cases like these involving violations of customs law.