In the United States v. Blackfeather case of 1894, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Native American could be prosecuted under federal law for a crime committed on tribal land. The defendant, Blackfeather, had been convicted of manslaughter in a lower court after killing another member of his tribe within reservation boundaries. He appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that as an enrolled member of his tribe and because the incident occurred on tribal land, he should not be subject to federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld Blackfeather's conviction. They ruled that while tribes do have sovereignty over their own affairs, it does not extend to criminal matters involving major crimes like murder or manslaughter which are covered by federal law regardless of where they occur in U.S territory including Indian reservations. This decision reinforced Congress' power through its plenary authority over Native American tribes and set precedent for future cases regarding jurisdictional issues between tribal governments and the Federal government.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Blackfeather case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through arguably unconstitutional means was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters contended that this ruling undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as it effectively sanctioned law enforcement overreach. They further asserted that allowing such evidence could incentivize police misconduct by providing an avenue for illicitly obtained information to be used in court proceedings, thereby eroding public trust in the justice system. Moreover, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "good faith" exception to exclusionary rule which allowed unlawfully seized evidence if officers were acting under a warrant they believed valid but later proved defective or absent altogether. In their view, this approach blurred constitutional lines and set dangerous precedent for future cases involving potential violations of citizens' rights.