In the case of Thomas v. United States in 1903, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and rights under Native American law. The plaintiff, William H. Thomas, claimed that he had purchased lands from Cherokee Indians who held them as individual allotments under an 1846 treaty with the U.S government. However, these sales were made without approval from Congress which was required by law for such transactions involving Indian lands to be valid. The defendant -the U.S Government- argued that since Congressional approval was not obtained for these purchases they were therefore invalid and thus Mr.Thomas did not have legal title to these properties. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument stating that while it recognized the right of Native Americans to sell their allotted lands if they chose to do so; any such sale must first receive Congressional approval before it could be considered legally binding. As a result of this ruling Mr.Thomas lost his claim over those properties because he failed to obtain necessary approvals prior making those purchases.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court and violated principles of federalism. He contended that under existing law, a state has jurisdiction over crimes committed within its borders unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise. In this case, he believed there was no clear evidence to suggest that Congress intended to give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian reservations in states admitted into the Union after 1885 (the year when an act providing for such exclusivity had been repealed). Therefore, he concluded that both state and federal courts should have concurrent jurisdiction over these cases. Furthermore, Harlan warned against interpreting silence or ambiguity in Congressional statutes as granting power to the Federal government at expense of State authority - a principle which he considered fundamental to maintaining balance between different levels of governance.