In the case of United States v. Grainger, 1952, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over income tax evasion. The defendant, Grainger, was accused of not reporting his full income for several years and thus evading taxes. He argued that he had relied on advice from his accountant and attorney who assured him that certain amounts were not taxable; hence he pleaded ignorance as a defense against willful evasion charges. However, the court ruled against him stating that reliance on professional advice does not absolve one from responsibility if it is found to be incorrect or misleading in terms of law compliance. It further clarified that while honest mistakes can be excused under good faith misunderstanding principle; deliberate ignorance or blind reliance cannot serve as an excuse for breaking laws especially when there are clear indications suggesting otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Grainger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an indictment which did not specify any particular act of fraud was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this lack of specificity violated the defendant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations against him. They contended that without specifying an actual fraudulent act, there could be no certainty as to whether a crime had been committed or if all jurors agreed on what constituted said crime in this case. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation that conspiracy laws could apply even when no specific illegal action had been taken by those accused. This broad application, they argued, risked criminalizing innocent conduct and giving prosecutors too much discretion in defining crimes after-the-fact.