In the case of United States v. Ahmed Ressam, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that a conviction for carrying explosives during commission of a felony requires proof that the explosives were carried in relation to the felony. The defendant, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested while entering the U.S from Canada with explosives in his car trunk and later convicted on multiple counts including making false statements to customs officials and carrying an explosive during commission of a felony. On appeal, he argued that there was no evidence showing he carried explosives 'in relation' to making false statements - which is what constituted his felonious act according to prosecutors. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with him but this decision was reversed by Supreme Court ruling 8-1 against him stating it's enough if carrying explosive facilitated underlying crime even indirectly.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ahmed Ressam, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §844(h)(2) was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent when drafting the statute. He believed that carrying explosives during a felony should be considered as "during and in relation" to that felony, even if there is no explicit plan to use those explosives in committing said felony. In his view, this broader interpretation would better serve public safety by deterring potential criminals from carrying dangerous weapons while committing felonies due to increased penalties associated with such actions under §844(h)(2). Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between the majority’s decision and previous court rulings regarding similar statutes where possession of a firearm or drugs were deemed related enough despite not being directly used in commission of crimes.