In the United States v. Gradwell et al., 1916, the Supreme Court examined whether defendants could be convicted under a federal statute for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by interfering with its functions, even if they did not succeed in their efforts. The case involved several individuals who conspired to bribe an Internal Revenue Service officer to overlook violations of liquor laws in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The lower courts had dismissed charges against them on grounds that no actual fraud occurred because the IRS officer was working undercover and never intended to allow any law violations. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling that a conspiracy existed as soon as plans were made between two or more people intending to commit an unlawful act against government operations - regardless of whether those plans succeeded or not. Therefore, it held that unsuccessful attempts at bribery still constituted a violation of federal law when aimed at obstructing governmental functions.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Gradwell et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent actions. He believed that not every failure to perform a duty under election laws should be considered as an attempt to defraud, especially when there is no clear intent or purpose to do so. According to him, such an expansive reading of the statute would make it overly punitive and could lead to unjust outcomes. Furthermore, he pointed out that many duties imposed by election laws are administrative in nature and their violation does not necessarily equate with fraud or corruption. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision which found defendants guilty based on mere technical violations without requiring proof of fraudulent intent.