In the 1903 case of Sharp v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land rights and Native American law. The plaintiff, Sharp, was an enrolled member of the Choctaw tribe who had been allotted land under an agreement between his tribe and the U.S government. He later sold this land to non-Native buyers in violation of restrictions that prohibited such sales for twenty-one years after allotment without presidential approval. When he attempted to reclaim ownership from those who bought it illegally, they argued that as a citizen (which he became upon receiving his allotment), he could not invoke tribal laws or treaties to protect his interests against other citizens. The court held that while Sharp did become a U.S citizen upon receiving his allotment, this did not strip him of protections afforded by tribal agreements with the federal government - including restrictions on alienation of allotted lands. Therefore, despite having violated these restrictions himself by selling without presidential approval; because these were intended for protection against fraud and imposition which might arise through traffic in their lands; thus rendering any sale made contrary thereto absolutely null and void.

In the dissenting opinion for Sharp v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with previous interpretations of the Constitution and federal law. He contended that under existing legislation, a person could only be tried in the state where they committed their crime. In this case, he believed that because Sharp had allegedly committed his crimes in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), he should have been tried there rather than being extradited to Kansas for trial. Furthermore, Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "Indian country," arguing it did not include all lands within an Indian reservation but only those parts reserved for Indians' use exclusively by treaty or statute. Therefore, according to him, if a non-Indian commits a crime on such land against another non-Indian then federal jurisdiction does not apply as per General Crimes Act; instead local laws should govern such cases.