In the United States v. Highsmith case of 1920, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving fraudulent use of mail for obtaining money under false pretenses. The defendant, Highsmith, was accused of using deceptive practices to solicit funds from individuals by promising them high returns on investments in oil leases and wells that did not exist or were non-productive. He was convicted in lower courts but appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial proving he had knowledge about the falsity of his claims when soliciting investments through mails. The Supreme Court upheld Highsmith's conviction stating that it is not necessary to provide direct proof showing an accused person knew their statements were false; circumstantial evidence can be used instead if strong enough. In this case, they found ample indirect evidence suggesting Highsmith must have known about his deceitful actions given how grossly misrepresented facts were regarding profitability and existence of oil wells/leases he sold interests in.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Highsmith case argued that the defendant's conviction for mail fraud should be overturned because there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to defraud. The dissenting justices believed that while Highsmith may have been negligent or even reckless in his business practices, this did not necessarily mean he intended to deceive his customers and commit fraud. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the federal mail fraud statute, arguing it was too broad and could potentially criminalize a wide range of innocent conduct. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential prosecutorial overreach and abuse of discretion if such a broad interpretation were allowed to stand.