The United States brought a case against William G. Shackleton for the illegal sale of alcohol on Indian lands in violation of an act passed by Congress. The Supreme Court held that the act was constitutional and applied to all persons, including those who were not members of any tribe or nation, as long as they were selling liquor within Indian country. The court also found that Congress had authority to regulate commerce with Indians and could pass laws prohibiting certain activities such as the sale of alcohol on their land without violating any rights guaranteed under treaties between tribes and the federal government. This decision established important precedent regarding Congressional power over Native American affairs which has been used in many cases since then.

In the case of The United States v. William G. Shackleford, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against a citizen of another state for damages caused by his negligence in operating a steamboat on navigable waters within that other state. In this particular case, Justice Curtis delivered the dissenting opinion and argued that Congress did not have authority under Article III of the Constitution to grant such jurisdiction to federal courts because it would be an unconstitutional exercise of power over states' rights. He further argued that if Congress were allowed to do so, then it could also pass laws regulating matters which are traditionally left up to individual states and thus interfere with their sovereignty. Ultimately, he concluded that granting such jurisdiction would be contrary both to established principles as well as constitutional provisions and should therefore not be done without express authorization from Congress itself or through amendment of the Constitution.