In the 1942 case United States v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute prohibiting false statements about financial condition with intent to defraud was not applicable to oral misrepresentations made by an insolvent debtor in bankruptcy proceedings. The defendant, Johnson, had been convicted of violating this statute after he orally misrepresented his financial status during a creditors' meeting in his bankruptcy proceeding. However, the Supreme Court reversed this conviction on appeal. The court reasoned that Congress intended for the law to apply only to written or printed statements and documents rather than spoken words because it specifically mentioned "false statement" and "fraudulent representation," which are typically associated with written communication.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Johnson, Justice Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(a) of the Espionage Act was too broad and potentially dangerous to free speech rights. He contended that this section should only apply when there is a clear intent to interfere with military operations or support enemies during war time, not merely when someone speaks out against government policies or actions. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how such an expansive interpretation could be used to suppress political dissent and criticism under the guise of protecting national security. This would undermine one of America’s fundamental democratic principles: freedom of expression. In his view, Congress did not intend for this law to be used in such a manner; rather it aimed at punishing acts harmful to national defense directly related with enemy assistance or military interference.