In Fenemore v. United States, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an appeal from a circuit court decision that found in favor of the government. The plaintiff argued that he had been wrongfully convicted and fined for failing to pay duties on imported goods as required by law. He claimed that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence and violated his constitutional rights under Article III of the Constitution, which guarantees due process of law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against him, finding that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction and fine, thus upholding the lower court's ruling in favor of the government.

In this case, the plaintiff in error argued that a federal court had no jurisdiction to try him for an alleged crime committed on Indian land. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Indian tribes. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Congress did not have authority over crimes committed by individuals against Indians or their property because such matters were within the exclusive province of state governments. He further noted that if Congress could punish offenses against Indians without any reference to state laws then it would be possible for them to pass laws which would supersede those of individual states - something he believed was unconstitutional. In conclusion, Marshall argued that since there is no express grant of power from the Constitution authorizing Congress' actions in this case they should not be allowed as it would violate both constitutional principles and fundamental rights.