In the United States v. Kesterson et al., 1935, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that prohibited interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles applied to defendants who had purchased cars in good faith but later discovered they were stolen. The case involved two men, Kesterson and another defendant, who bought automobiles from a third party not knowing they were stolen. When they attempted to sell these cars across state lines, they were arrested and charged under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act (also known as Dyer Act). They argued their innocence on grounds of ignorance regarding the car's status at purchase time. The court ruled against them stating that once it is established that a vehicle has been transported across state lines by someone aware it was stolen - regardless if this person is different from those currently possessing or transporting it - then anyone else subsequently transporting said vehicle can be prosecuted under Dyer Act even without knowledge about its initial theft. This decision underscored an important principle: Ignorance does not exempt one from liability when dealing with goods whose possession could potentially violate federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Kesterson case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply the law. The dissenters believed that, under existing legislation, a person could not be convicted for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States unless they had actually committed or attempted to commit such an offense. They contended that mere agreement between parties did not constitute a crime if no action was taken towards its execution. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial; arguing some of it should have been excluded as irrelevant or prejudicial. Lastly, they expressed concern over potential misuse of power by government officials who might use this ruling as justification for prosecuting individuals based on suspicion rather than concrete proof of criminal activity.