In the case of United States v. Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, 2002, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the government has defeated its objective. The defendants were arrested during an undercover operation for attempting to retrieve drugs from a truck previously seized by law enforcement officers. They argued that they could not be charged with conspiracy as the plot was already thwarted when they became involved in it. However, their convictions were upheld on appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court which held that participants can join a conspiracy at any time and be held responsible for its objectives regardless if those objectives have been blocked or achieved.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision expanded conspiracy law in a way that was not supported by precedent or logic. He contended that once a conspiracy has been thwarted, it no longer exists and therefore cannot be joined by new members. In this case, he believed the defendants could not have joined an already-thwarted drug trafficking conspiracy because there was no ongoing criminal enterprise to join at the time of their involvement. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that conspiracies are "continuing" offenses; instead arguing they should only be considered as such when explicitly stated in statute or if continuing nature is part of its definition - neither applicable here according to him. Thus, Scalia concluded these men were wrongly convicted under current interpretation of federal narcotics laws.