In the United States v. Thomas O. Robinson, Jr., 1987 case, the Supreme Court had to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for increased penalties for those who commit felonies while on release pending trial or sentencing was applicable retroactively. The defendant, Thomas O. Robinson Jr., was convicted of several drug-related charges and sentenced under this law even though his crimes were committed before it went into effect in 1984 but he was not sentenced until after its enactment. Robinson appealed his sentence arguing that applying the law retroactively violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution which prohibits laws from being applied retrospectively if they increase punishment for criminal acts already committed. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that since he had been released on bail pending trial when he committed these offenses and because Congress intended to deter such conduct by individuals awaiting trial or sentencing with this legislation, it did not violate ex post facto principles as it didn't alter any substantial rights existing at time crime was committed.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Thomas O. Robinson, Jr., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold Robinson's conviction under 18 U.S.C §1001 was a misinterpretation of the statute and an overreach of federal authority. He contended that this law was intended to protect governmental functions from fraudulent interference, not to punish false statements made in private commercial transactions like those involved in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of such broad interpretation by prosecutors and its chilling effect on free speech rights protected by First Amendment due to fear of criminal liability for making inaccurate statements even without intent to defraud or cause harm.