In this case, the respondents were charged with defrauding the United States, via defrauding the local governmental units as opposed to the U.S. government, because of alleged collusive bidding on state sanctioned projects. The Supreme Court was not determining whether the collusive bidding occurred, but rather, whether the respondents could be prosecuted under the statue that the lower court employed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court to the dismay of Robert Jackson, who wrote a dissenting opinion.