In the 1893 case of Caha v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed in unincorporated territories unless a specific statute grants them such authority. The case involved William Caha who was convicted for murder on an American ship off the coast of Alaska before it became a state or incorporated territory. On appeal, his lawyers argued that since no law specifically gave federal courts jurisdiction over this area at the time of his crime, his conviction should be overturned. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and reversed Caha's conviction, establishing a precedent about how territorial jurisdiction works within American jurisprudence.

In the dissenting opinion for CAHA v. UNITED STATES, 1893, Justice Brewer argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over this case because it involved a private land dispute in California. He believed that such matters should be handled by state courts rather than federal ones. According to him, allowing the federal government to intervene in local property disputes would set a dangerous precedent and could potentially undermine states' rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Enclave Clause of Article I of Constitution which grants Congress exclusive legislative authority over places purchased by consent of legislature where forts or other needful buildings are erected; according to him this clause was intended only for military purposes and not as an all-encompassing power over any territory acquired from states.