In the 1990 case United States et al. v. Marcus S. Smith et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal statute that prohibited certain types of false statements made to federally insured banks applied when those statements were made by bank officers themselves, rather than external parties. The defendants in this case, who were officers at a failing Oklahoma bank, had been convicted under this law for making false entries in their bank's records with intent to deceive banking authorities and auditors about the financial health of their institution. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Smith and his co-defendants, upholding their convictions. In its decision, it held that the relevant statute did indeed apply to fraudulent misrepresentations made by bank officials as well as outsiders because they could also cause harm to both banks and public confidence in them if left unchecked.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Marcus S. Smith et al., 1990, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Smith was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of due process and equal protection under law. The dissenters believed that there were significant procedural errors made during trial which violated Smith's constitutional rights, including improper jury instructions and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence by prosecution. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of relevant statutes, arguing they had been applied too broadly in this case leading to an unjust outcome for defendants like Smith who were not given fair opportunity to defend themselves effectively or challenge questionable prosecutorial tactics used against them.