In the 1896 case of Tla-Koo-Yel-Lee v. United States, a Native American from the Yakama tribe named Tla-Koo-Yel-Lee was charged with introducing spirituous liquors into an Indian reservation, which was against federal law at that time. The defendant argued that he had rights under the Treaty of Yakima to bring alcohol onto his own land within the reservation without interference from U.S. authorities. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while treaties between tribes and government are considered part of supreme law of land according to Constitution's Supremacy Clause; Congress has power over Indian affairs and can regulate them as it sees fit including prohibition on introduction or sale of liquor on reservations even if it appears inconsistent with stipulations in treaty agreements made earlier.

In the dissenting opinion for TLA-KOO-YEL-LEE v. United States, 1896, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of justice and fairness. He contended that the court had previously recognized Indian tribes as distinct political communities with inherent powers of self-government. Thus, he believed it was wrong to deny them their rights based on a technicality in how they were organized or named by Congress. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of treaties between Native American tribes and the U.S., arguing that these agreements should be interpreted liberally in favor of indigenous peoples due to their disadvantaged position when negotiating such treaties.