In The United States v. Amedy, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of larceny for stealing goods from an Indian tribe. The case involved two men who had stolen horses and other property belonging to members of the Cherokee Nation in Georgia. The court held that although Indians were not citizens, they still enjoyed certain rights under federal law and thus could bring criminal charges against non-Indians who stole their property. Furthermore, since Congress had passed laws protecting Indians' right to own property, it followed that those same laws should protect them from theft as well. As such, the court ruled that Amedy was guilty of larceny and his conviction was upheld.

In The United States v. Amedy, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant who had been convicted of piracy in an admiralty court could be tried again for the same crime in a district court. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that such double jeopardy would violate both common law and natural justice. He argued that it was not within Congress' power to authorize two separate trials on charges arising from one act or transaction as this would amount to punishing someone twice for the same offense, which is prohibited by both English common law and American constitutional jurisprudence. Furthermore, he argued that allowing multiple prosecutions based on one set of facts violated due process protections against cruel and unusual punishment under Article I Section 9 of the Constitution. In conclusion, Marshall believed that permitting successive prosecutions for identical offenses constituted an injustice which should not be countenanced by any government system founded upon principles of equity and justice.