In Graves v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted of murder in Indian Territory, which later became part of Oklahoma. The defendant, Graves, argued that his conviction should be overturned because he had been tried by a jury composed entirely of non-Indians and thus did not represent a fair cross-section of the community as required by law. He also claimed that certain evidence used against him at trial was obtained illegally and should have been excluded from consideration. The Supreme Court rejected both arguments and upheld Graves' conviction. It held that there was no requirement for juries to include members from every racial or ethnic group present in the community; rather, they must only be drawn from among those eligible to serve under local laws - which at this time did not include Indians in Indian Territory. Regarding the second argument about illegal evidence, it found no error with its use during trial since it had been obtained legally according to existing federal statutes governing criminal procedure in territories like Indian Territory where state laws didn't apply yet.

In the dissenting opinion for Graves v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law and an invasion of states' rights. He contended that Congress did not have unlimited power to tax state agencies or instrumentalities, as this would undermine their ability to function independently within their own spheres of authority. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), asserting that it only prohibited discriminatory taxes on federal entities by states and did not grant reciprocal immunity to state entities from federal taxation. In his view, allowing such broad taxing powers could potentially lead to destructive competition between different levels of government and disrupt the balance intended by the Constitution’s framers.