In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Nathaniel Bassett, the court was tasked with deciding whether a federal statute that prohibited citizens from trading in goods with Native Americans without permission from Congress violated the Constitution. At issue was whether this law interfered with state sovereignty and infringed upon individual rights to engage in commerce as protected by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Ultimately, it was determined that while Congress had authority over Indian affairs under its power to regulate commerce among foreign nations and between states and territories, it did not have authority to interfere with state laws concerning trade within their own borders or impose restrictions on individuals engaging in such trade. Thus, the court held that Congress could not pass legislation prohibiting citizens from trading directly with Native Americans without first obtaining consent from each affected state government.

In the case of United States v. Nathaniel Bassett, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a person could be convicted of larceny for stealing goods from a vessel that had been abandoned by its crew and left adrift in navigable waters. The majority opinion held that such an act constituted larceny, but Justice Curtis dissented on the grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any intent to steal or deprive another person of their property. He argued instead that it appeared more likely that Bassett had taken possession of these items out of necessity due to his own dire circumstances rather than with any criminal intent. Furthermore, he noted how this interpretation would lead to absurd results since anyone who happened upon an abandoned vessel in distress would be liable for theft if they took anything from it regardless of their intentions or need for those items.