In the case of Amos J. Bruce and Franklin Steele v. The United States, the plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully convicted under a law passed by Congress in 1820 which prohibited any person from trading with Native Americans without permission from the government. They claimed that this law was unconstitutional because it violated their right to due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Congress has broad authority over Indian affairs and can pass laws regulating trade with Native Americans even if those laws conflict with constitutional rights such as due process or other protections for individuals accused of crimes. Furthermore, they held that since no specific language in either document explicitly prohibits such legislation, it is up to Congress alone to decide whether or not its actions are permissible under both documents.

In the case of Amos J. Bruce and Franklin Steele v. The United States, the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for private land claims in Oregon Territory prior to its admission as a state into the Union. According to Justice McLean, this was an issue best left up to each individual state's legislature rather than federal legislation because it involved local matters such as property rights and taxation laws which were beyond Congress' power under Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution. He also noted that if Congress could make these kinds of decisions then they would be able to interfere with any other matter within a territory without limitation or restriction from either constitutional provisions or judicial review by Supreme Court justices. Ultimately, he concluded that while there may have been some benefit in passing such legislation at one point in time, it should not be done so now since it is unconstitutional and could lead down a slippery slope towards further government overreach on issues outside their jurisdiction.