In the case of Asbell v. State of Kansas (1907), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with an issue concerning a state law that regulated liquor sales and distribution. The plaintiff, Mr. Asbell, was convicted under this law for selling alcohol without a license in Kansas - a state which had adopted prohibition laws against such activity. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court on grounds that it violated his rights under both federal interstate commerce laws and Fourteenth Amendment due process protections. The court upheld Mr. Asbell's conviction, ruling that states have broad powers to regulate or prohibit alcohol within their borders as part of their police power to protect public health and safety; these powers are not superseded by federal interstate commerce regulations unless Congress explicitly says so. Furthermore, they found no violation of due process because he had been given fair notice about what conduct was prohibited by the law and had chosen to violate it anyway.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Asbell v. State of Kansas argued that the state law, which allowed for a person to be convicted and punished for introducing liquor into an Indian reservation, was unconstitutional. The justice contended that this law infringed upon federal jurisdiction as it is only Congress who has the power to regulate commerce with Native American tribes. He further stated that while states have rights over their territory, they do not extend to federally recognized tribal lands or reservations within those borders without express consent from Congress. Therefore, he believed Kansas had no authority to enforce its prohibition laws on these territories and convict Mr. Asbell under them.