In the United States v. O'Malley et al., 1965, the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal from a decision of the Seventh Circuit which had reversed convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The defendants were officers and directors of a corporation that sold franchises for coin-operated dry cleaning machines. They were charged with using false representations about earnings potential to sell these franchises, thereby committing mail fraud by sending fraudulent materials through post. The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary for the government to prove that victims of the alleged scheme actually relied on misrepresentations made by defendants in order to establish guilt under federal law prohibiting use of mails in execution or furtherance of any "scheme or artifice" involving money or property obtained by means of false pretenses, representations, promises etc.. Therefore, even if franchisees did not rely on misleading earning projections provided by defendants but purchased franchises due to other reasons such as faith in corporate officials' integrity; this would still constitute violation under said federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. O'Malley case argued that the majority's ruling was a departure from established legal principles and precedent, particularly regarding conspiracy law. The dissent contended that the defendants' actions did not constitute a criminal conspiracy under federal law because they were acting within their rights as union officials to negotiate labor contracts. It also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "extortion" under the Hobbs Act, arguing it should be limited to instances where property is obtained through actual or threatened violence, rather than broadly including any instance where one party obtains property from another with their consent induced by wrongful use of force or fear. Furthermore, it criticized how lower courts handled jury instructions on these issues and believed this could have influenced verdicts unfairly against defendants.