In the United States v. Kenofskey case of 1916, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving fraudulent claims against the government. Mr. Kenofskey was accused of defrauding insurance companies by setting fire to his property and then filing for insurance money under false pretenses. The court had to decide whether this constituted a fraud against the government since some of these companies were federally incorporated entities, thus making it an offense under federal law (Criminal Code section 37). The court concluded that while Mr. Kenofskey's actions were indeed fraudulent, they did not constitute a fraud against the U.S Government as defined in Criminal Code section 37 because there was no direct financial loss or risk incurred by the Federal Government due to his actions.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Kenofskey, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the statute in question. He argued that it was not intended to cover cases where a person had been deceived into insuring property at an excessive rate due to fraudulent misrepresentation about its value. According to him, such deception did not constitute "burning" or "setting fire" as specified by the law and thus should not be punishable under it. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had wanted to include this type of fraud within its scope, they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Therefore, he believed that Mr.Kenofskey should not have been convicted based on his actions since they were outside of what was covered by the statute.