In the case of Georgia v. Jesup, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the state of Georgia had the right to prosecute a Native American for a crime committed on a reservation. The case arose when a Native American man, named Jesup, was arrested by Georgia state authorities for the murder of another Native American on a reservation. Jesup argued that the state of Georgia had no jurisdiction to prosecute him, as the crime had been committed on a reservation and was thus under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Jesup, holding that the state of Georgia did not have the authority to prosecute him for the crime. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over Native American reservations, and that the state of Georgia had no authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the federal government had the power to regulate the affairs of Native American tribes, and that the state of Georgia could not interfere with this power. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Georgia did not have the authority to prosecute Jesup for the crime he had committed on a reservation. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over Native American reservations, and that the state of Georgia had no authority to interfere with the federal government's authority.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Georgia v. Jesup, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that it was not within Congress' power to authorize a state court to try an Indian for a crime committed on tribal land, as this would be tantamount to allowing one sovereign nation (the United States) to exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign nation (the tribe). Furthermore, he noted that even if such authority were granted by Congress, it could only be done through treaty or statute; no such agreement had been made between the US and Cherokee Nation in this case. Justice Field concluded his dissent with an appeal for fairness towards Native Americans: "The Indians are wards of the government...and their rights should be carefully guarded."