In the case of United States v. Herr et al., 1908, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal statute that prohibited false statements about a bank's financial condition applied to national banks. The defendants were directors and officers of a national bank who had been accused of making false entries in their books and reports with intent to deceive the Comptroller of Currency and defraud the bank itself. They argued that they could not be prosecuted under this law because it did not specifically mention national banks. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, ruling unanimously that even though national banks were not explicitly mentioned in this particular statute, they still fell within its scope due to other laws which clearly established them as part of "the banking associations referred to." Therefore, it was held that these individuals could indeed be prosecuted for their alleged fraudulent actions under this law.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Herr et al., 1908 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the government was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed between defendants. They contended that mere suspicion or belief, without concrete proof, should not be enough grounds for conviction on such serious charges as fraud and conspiracy against the government. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly "conspiracy" had been defined by the court in this case - arguing it could potentially criminalize innocent conduct if interpreted too loosely. Therefore, they felt it necessary to overturn these convictions based on lack of substantial evidence and an overbroad interpretation of what constitutes a criminal conspiracy.