The United States brought a case against Daniel H. Bromley for the illegal sale of liquor on Indian land without permission from the government. The Supreme Court found that, under federal law, it was unlawful to sell alcohol on Indian lands without authorization from Congress or other competent authority and that Bromley had violated this law by selling alcohol without such authorization. Furthermore, they held that even though he may have believed his actions were lawful due to conflicting state laws regarding the sale of liquor in Indian territory, he could not be excused since federal laws superseded any state regulations concerning activities within an Indian reservation. As a result of their ruling, Bromley was convicted and fined for violating federal law with regards to selling alcohol on Native American land.

In the case of The United States v. Daniel H. Bromley, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a state court decision in a criminal case that involved only local laws and regulations. Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that Congress did not have authority to grant appellate jurisdiction over such cases because they were purely matters of state law and therefore beyond its reach. He argued further that allowing appeals in these types of cases would be detrimental to public policy as it could lead to conflicting decisions between different states on similar issues and undermine their sovereignty by subjecting them to review by another government body. Ultimately, he concluded that while Congress may have been able to provide for appeals in certain circumstances involving questions of both federal and state law, this particular situation fell outside those parameters due to its exclusive focus on local laws and regulations which should remain under the sole purview of each individual state's courts system without interference from any other entity or branch of government.