In the case of United States v. Reisinger, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a federal law prohibiting the sale of liquor in Indian country was constitutional. The Court held that the law was constitutional, as Congress had the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. The case arose when the defendant, Reisinger, was charged with selling liquor in Indian country in violation of a federal law. Reisinger argued that the law was unconstitutional, as it was an infringement on the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. The Court disagreed, finding that Congress had the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, and that the law was a valid exercise of that power. The Court noted that the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes was derived from the Constitution, and that Congress had the authority to pass laws to protect the tribes from the sale of liquor. The Court also noted that the law was not an infringement on the sovereignty of the tribes, as it did not interfere with their internal affairs. The Court concluded that the law was constitutional, and that Reisinger was guilty of violating it. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Reisinger.

In the case of United States v. Reisinger, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass the act under consideration because it was not within its power to regulate commerce between states and foreign nations. He further argued that if Congress did have such power, then it would be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority as it would violate both the Fifth Amendment's protection against taking private property for public use without just compensation and Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive control over international trade. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that even though there may have been some benefit from passing this act, doing so was beyond what is allowed by law and thus should not stand.