In the 1955 case United States v. Green et al., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a matter involving conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government by obstructing its functions and impairing, obstructing, and defeating tax collection efforts. The defendants were charged with conspiring to bribe an internal revenue agent in order to evade taxes owed by one of them for operating slot machines illegally. They argued that their indictment was defective because it did not allege any overt act committed after July 1, 1948 (the effective date of a new law). However, they had been indicted under an older statute which did not require such allegations. The court held that while some overt acts alleged occurred before July 1st, others took place afterwards - thus falling within both old and new statutes' periods. Therefore, even if no single act could be considered as violating both laws simultaneously due to different requirements regarding timing or nature of actions needed for conviction under each one separately; taken together all these activities formed part of same continuous scheme aimed at achieving illegal objective i.e., evading payment due from federal income taxation through bribery.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Green et al., Justice Felix Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Hobbs Act, arguing that it was not intended to cover all instances of labor union violence or threats thereof. He contended that Congress had only meant to criminalize such behavior when it directly affected interstate commerce and not in situations where its impact on commerce was merely potential or indirect. Furthermore, he believed that by interpreting the law so broadly, the Court risked infringing upon states' rights to regulate their own internal affairs - including labor disputes - without federal interference. Thus, he would have reversed Green's conviction because there wasn't sufficient evidence showing his actions had a direct effect on interstate commerce.