In the 1972 case of Keeble v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Major Louis Keeble, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe who was charged with larceny for taking three federally protected prairie dogs from Indian Country. The court held that even though prairie dogs were not specifically mentioned in federal law as items that could be stolen under the Major Crimes Act (which applies to serious crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land), they still fell within its purview because they are personal property. Furthermore, it was determined that Mr. Keeble had a right to request lesser-included offense instructions at his trial – meaning he should have been allowed to argue before a jury that if he did commit any crime, it was only simple assault rather than aggravated assault - and his conviction was overturned due to this denial.

In the dissenting opinion for Keeble v. United States, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow a lesser-included offense instruction in cases involving crimes committed by Native Americans on reservations was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and federal law. He contended that this ruling would create unnecessary confusion and complexity in future trials. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing such instructions, suggesting it could lead to jury nullification or compromise verdicts where jurors might choose a lesser charge not because they believe it is appropriate but simply as a way to avoid deadlock or reach consensus more easily. Ultimately, Justice Rehnquist believed that the court should have upheld Keeble's conviction without offering an option for a lesser charge.