In the case of Moore v. United States in 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land rights and property ownership. The plaintiff, Moore, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a treaty with Native American tribes. However, this sale was made before Congress passed legislation allowing for such transactions to take place legally. The defendant, the U.S government argued that since the original transaction occurred prior to Congressional approval being granted for these types of sales between individuals and Native Americans (which were previously prohibited), Moore's claim to ownership was invalid. The court sided with the government stating that even though subsequent laws might have allowed similar transactions under different circumstances; they did not retroactively validate previous illegal actions or agreements made before their enactment. Therefore, despite having paid for and occupied his parcel without dispute until then; Mr.Moore's purchase was deemed unlawful because it happened at a time when such deals were still considered illegal by federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Native American reservations unless explicitly granted by Congress. He believed that tribal sovereignty should be respected and maintained unless specifically overridden by legislation. In his view, the majority's decision to allow federal prosecution of a murder case on a reservation without explicit Congressional authorization was an unwarranted expansion of federal power at the expense of tribal autonomy. This interpretation emphasized respect for Native American self-governance and limited government intervention in their affairs.