In the case of Daniel Parker vs. The United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a federal law that prohibited citizens from trading goods with Native Americans on their own land was constitutional. At issue in this case were two conflicting laws: one passed by Congress and another passed by Georgia which allowed for such trade. The court ultimately ruled that Congress had exclusive authority to regulate Indian affairs and thus held that the state law was unconstitutional as it conflicted with Congressional legislation. In doing so, they established an important precedent regarding congressional power over Indian affairs and affirmed its supremacy over any state laws or regulations concerning them.

In the case of Daniel Parker vs. The United States, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass an act prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within certain limits without first obtaining consent from the state legislatures. He noted that this was contrary to established principles and practices under our federal system, as well as being inconsistent with other acts passed by Congress on similar subjects. Furthermore, he argued that such an act would be unconstitutional because it would amount to a regulation of commerce among states and thus interfere with their sovereignty over internal affairs. In conclusion, Justice Story concluded that if Congress wished to regulate commerce between states then they must do so through constitutional means rather than passing laws which infringe upon state rights or powers reserved for them alone under the Constitution.