In the United States v. Grundy and Thornburgh, two men were accused of violating a federal law that prohibited trading with Native Americans without permission from the government. The defendants argued that since they had obtained permission from local authorities in Tennessee to trade with the Cherokee Nation, their actions did not violate any laws. However, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled against them on behalf of the Supreme Court, stating that only Congress could grant such permissions and therefore their actions violated federal law. This ruling established an important precedent for future cases involving tribal sovereignty and states’ rights by affirming Congress’s power over Indian affairs as outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

In the United States v. Grundy and Thornburgh, Chief Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted an act of Congress from 1798. He noted that this act was intended to provide for criminal prosecutions against those who conspired to defraud the government by obtaining land grants through false pretences or bribery. The majority held that since there was no specific language in the statute prohibiting such conduct, it could not be used as a basis for prosecution; however, Chief Justice Marshall disagreed with this interpretation and argued instead that any reasonable reading of the statute would include such behavior within its scope. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had meant to exclude certain acts from being punishable under this law they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it open to interpretation.