In the United States v. Sischo case of 1922, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal law that prohibited false statements about patent medicines violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The defendant, Dr. William J.A. Sischo, was convicted for misbranding and falsely advertising his tuberculosis treatment under the Sherley Amendment to the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 which made it illegal to label drugs with false therapeutic claims intended to defraud consumers. On appeal, Sischo argued that this amendment infringed upon his constitutional right to freedom of speech as he believed in his product’s effectiveness despite lack of scientific evidence supporting its efficacy against tuberculosis. The Supreme Court upheld Sischo's conviction stating that fraudulent commercial speech is not protected by First Amendment rights because it can harm public health and safety; hence Congress has authority over such matters through its power to regulate interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sischo, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an indictment that lacked specificity was contrary to established legal principles and precedent. He contended that the indictment should have clearly stated what acts or omissions constituted negligence, as this is fundamental in criminal law. The defendant must be informed of specific charges against him so he can prepare his defense accordingly. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for courts to assume facts not presented in indictments or infer them from ambiguous language used therein. According to Justice McReynolds, such practices undermine defendants' rights and could lead to unjust outcomes if allowed by courts.