John Glenn and Charles M. Thruston appealed to the United States Supreme Court after they were convicted of violating a federal law that prohibited citizens from trading with Native Americans without permission from the government. The appellants argued that their actions did not constitute a crime because they had received permission from local authorities in Arkansas, where the trade occurred. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them, finding that Congress had exclusive authority over Indian affairs and thus could regulate all trade between Indians and non-Indians within its borders regardless of any state laws or regulations. Furthermore, it held that since no special license was granted by Congress for this particular transaction, it was illegal under federal law even if authorized by state officials. As such, John Glenn and Charles M. Thruston's conviction stood as valid under US law at the time

In the case of John Glenn and Charles M. Thruston v. The United States, the appellants argued that they were entitled to compensation for their services as officers in the militia during a period of time when Congress had not authorized any military force or appropriated funds for such service. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, finding that there was no legal obligation on behalf of Congress to pay these individuals since they had voluntarily entered into service without being called upon by either state or federal authority. Furthermore, it was determined that even if an implied contract existed between them and Congress regarding payment for their services, it would be unenforceable due to lack of consideration from both parties involved in forming said agreement. Ultimately, the court concluded that neither party could recover damages from each other based on this dispute and dismissed all claims made by Glenn and Thruston against the United States government.