United States v. Adams was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor on Indian reservations was constitutional. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, and that Congress had the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations. The case arose when the defendant, Adams, was charged with selling liquor on an Indian reservation in violation of a federal statute. Adams argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Indian Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Congress had the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations, and that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that Congress had the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations because it was necessary to protect the health and welfare of the Indians. The Court also noted that the statute was not an infringement on the sovereignty of the Indian tribes, as it only regulated the sale of liquor on the reservations, and did not interfere with the tribes' internal affairs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting the sale of liquor on Indian reservations was constitutional, and that Congress had the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations. The Court's decision established an important precedent for the regulation of commerce on Indian reservations.

In United States v. Adams, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that authorized the Secretary of War to issue patents for land in California violated the Constitution's prohibition on Congress granting titles of nobility. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this provision because there was no evidence that any title or privilege had been conferred upon anyone by virtue of their patent and thus no violation occurred. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that although there may have been no actual conferral of a title or privilege, Congress still granted an advantage over other citizens who were not eligible for such patents and therefore violated the constitutional prohibition against granting titles of nobility. He argued further that even if one could argue otherwise, then all laws which grant advantages based on merit would be unconstitutional as they too would constitute grants of noble privileges in some form or another.