In the United States v. Barber case of 1890, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving interstate commerce and taxation. The defendant, Barber, was a New York resident who sold liquor in Connecticut without paying state taxes or obtaining a license as required by Connecticut law. He argued that he was protected under federal laws governing interstate commerce because his products were shipped from New York to customers in Connecticut directly. However, the court disagreed with this argument and upheld his conviction for violating state law. The Supreme Court held that once goods have reached their destination state and are no longer part of interstate transit, they become subject to local jurisdiction including taxation and licensing requirements. This ruling clarified an important aspect of how states can regulate commercial activities within their borders even when those activities involve goods originating from other states.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Barber, Justice Lamar argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Native American reservations by non-Native individuals against Native Americans. He maintained that such jurisdiction belonged to tribal governments under their inherent sovereignty and was supported by treaties between tribes and the U.S. government. Furthermore, he contended that Congress had no constitutional authority to pass laws extending federal criminal law into Indian country without consent from affected tribes because it violated principles of tribal self-governance and autonomy recognized in previous court decisions and international law norms respecting indigenous rights.