In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Henry Yates and Archibald McIntyre, two men were charged with violating a federal law that prohibited citizens from trading goods with Native Americans without first obtaining a license from the government. The defendants argued that they had not violated any laws because their trade was conducted on private land owned by an Indian tribe, which was outside of the jurisdiction of federal authority. However, the court ruled in favor of the prosecution and held that even though it occurred on tribal lands, it still constituted illegal trading under federal law since it involved goods originating from beyond state lines. This decision established precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding interstate commerce and tribal sovereignty rights over their own lands.

In the United States v. Henry Yates and Archibald McIntyre, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the indictment against Yates and McIntyre for failing to pay duties on imported goods. He reasoned that Congress had given authority to collect duties from importers of merchandise, and it was within their power to do so without violating any constitutional provisions. Furthermore, he argued that since there was no dispute as to whether or not these two individuals had failed to pay such duties, they were liable under existing laws regardless of how long ago those laws were enacted. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the Court's decision should be reversed because it did not take into account all relevant facts in this case before dismissing the indictment against Yates and McIntyre.