In the case of United States v. Jordan et al., 1951, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a federal district court had jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by the United States against private individuals for damages caused by their alleged negligence in maintaining and operating an oil refinery which resulted in pollution damaging government property. The defendants argued that under Section 1346(a)(2) of Title 28 U.S.C.A., known as the "Tort Claims Act," such suits could only be heard if they were based on state law, and since there was no applicable state law governing this situation, they contended that the federal court lacked jurisdiction. However, Justice Reed delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court rejecting this argument. He stated that while it is true that certain types of claims are limited to those defined by state law under Section 1346(a)(2), other sections within Title 28 provide broader authority for suits involving damage to government property regardless of whether there is an equivalent right at state level.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jordan et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating its lawful governmental functions in violation of Section 37 of the Criminal Code was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any specific intent by defendants to interfere with or obstruct legitimate Government function as required under this law. They also disagreed with how broadly "defraud" had been interpreted in this case, arguing it should be limited only to cases involving financial fraud against the government rather than being applied so expansively as done here which could potentially criminalize many otherwise legal activities if they were found somehow disruptive or inconvenient for some federal officials.