In the United States v. Johnson case of 1945, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a federal statute that made it illegal to conspire to damage or destroy property owned by the U.S. government applied when such property was in possession of a private party under contract with the government. The defendant, Johnson, had been convicted for conspiring to defraud and damage war materials (specifically rubber) which were being stored at his privately-owned warehouse but were technically owned by the U.S. Government as part of its war efforts during World War II. The Supreme Court reversed Johnson's conviction on appeal, ruling that since he was legally in possession of these goods through his contractual agreement with the government, they did not constitute "property" belonging to the United States within meaning of this particular federal law against conspiracy. Therefore, even though he had intended and attempted to defraud and damage these materials while they were under his care - actions which would have undoubtedly harmed national interests during wartime - he could not be prosecuted under this specific statute because it didn't apply in cases where such "government property" was held by private parties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Johnson, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to overturn Johnson's conviction was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent behind the Federal Kidnapping Act. He contended that Congress intended to cover all aspects of kidnapping in this law, including instances where victims are not transported across state lines until after they have been murdered. The majority’s interpretation would create an illogical situation where kidnappers could evade federal prosecution by killing their victims before crossing state lines - something he believed Congress did not intend when drafting this legislation. Furthermore, he disagreed with the notion that applying this law in such cases infringes upon states' rights and jurisdiction over murder cases; rather it complements them by providing additional means to prosecute these serious crimes.