In the United States v. Ritterman case of 1926, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy law and fraudulent conveyance. The defendant, Mr. Ritterman, was accused of fraudulently transferring his property to his wife in order to avoid paying creditors after declaring bankruptcy. The court held that under Section 67e of the Bankruptcy Act, such transfers could be deemed voidable if they were made within four months prior to filing for bankruptcy with an intent to hinder or delay creditors' claims against him. However, it also noted that this provision did not apply if there was no actual intent proven behind defrauding creditors but merely a constructive one based on insolvency at time of transfer or lack of fair consideration received by debtor in return for transferred assets.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Ritterman case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that wiretapping constituted an invasion of privacy, even if it was used to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that individuals lose their right to privacy when using public communication systems like telephones or telegraphs. Instead, they maintained that these forms of communication should be protected under the same constitutional provisions as private conversations held within one's home or office.