In the United States v. Wright case of 1912, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal law prohibiting false statements about a bank's financial condition was constitutional under the First Amendment. The defendant, Mr. Wright, had been convicted for making false reports regarding his bank’s solvency to deceive people and inflate its stock prices artificially. He appealed on grounds that this violated his freedom of speech rights as protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Wright's conviction ruling that such fraudulent conduct fell outside protections offered by free speech provisions in the Constitution since it could cause significant harm to public interest and economic stability if left unchecked or unpunished. This decision established an important precedent in American jurisprudence concerning limitations on freedom of speech where fraud is involved - affirming that not all forms of expression are safeguarded under constitutional law when they pose potential risks to societal welfare or integrity.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Wright, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone. He argued that while it is possible to convict based solely on such evidence, in this case, there was not enough compelling proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant had been convicted of stealing mail from a post office box and selling stolen bonds found within; however, no one witnessed him committing these acts nor were they able to definitively link him to them aside from his possession of similar bonds at a later date. Holmes believed that without more concrete evidence or testimony directly implicating Wright in the crime itself, upholding his conviction would be unjust and potentially set an alarming precedent for future cases relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.