In Gwin v. United States (1901), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving an individual named Gwin who was charged with selling liquor to Native Americans in Oklahoma, which was against federal law at that time. The defense argued that the indictment should be dismissed because it did not specify whether the individuals he sold alcohol to were members of tribes under guardianship of the government or if they were citizens by allotment, as this would determine their legal status and rights under different laws. However, the court ruled against Gwin stating that regardless of their specific tribal affiliation or citizenship status, all Native Americans are considered "Indians" under federal law prohibiting sale of alcohol to them. Therefore, any distinction between types of Indian affiliations is irrelevant for this particular offense.

The dissenting opinion in the case of GWIN v. UNITED STATES argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for conspiracy to defraud was based on an overly broad interpretation of what constituted "conspiracy". The dissenting justices contended that there must be clear, unambiguous evidence of intent to commit fraud and not just mere suspicion or assumption. They also disagreed with the majority's view that any act, no matter how trivial or innocent it may seem on its own, can be considered part of a fraudulent scheme if it contributes in some way towards achieving the overall objective. This interpretation, they warned, could potentially criminalize many ordinary business transactions and interactions which are carried out in good faith but might inadvertently aid someone else's fraudulent activity without their knowledge or consent. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse and abuse of such wide-ranging powers by law enforcement authorities.