In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Jehiel Brooks and Others, the government argued that a group of defendants had unlawfully seized goods from an Indian trading post in violation of federal law. The defendants claimed they were acting under orders from their superior officers during military service at Fort Snelling, Minnesota Territory. They argued that since Congress had not provided for any civil or criminal proceedings against them for such acts, they should be immune to prosecution by the U.S. government as members of the militia forces serving in Minnesota Territory at this time period before it became a state in 1858. In its decision, the court held that while Congress may have intended to provide immunity to those who acted under orders from their superiors during military service, there was no evidence presented which showed that such immunity extended beyond what was necessary for carrying out legitimate military operations and did not include actions taken outside these bounds - including seizing property without legal authority or justification - thus making them liable to prosecution by U.S authorities even if done while on active duty with militia forces operating within Minnesota Territory prior to becoming a state .

In the United States v. Jehiel Brooks and Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that authorized the President to appoint three commissioners in each state for surveying public lands applied to Michigan. The majority opinion held that it did not apply because Michigan had already been admitted into the Union as a sovereign state before Congress passed this act. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that although Michigan had become a State after its admission into the Union, it still remained subject to certain laws of Congress; secondly, he argued that even if there were some doubt about whether or not this law applied to Michigan at all times since its admission into the Union, then by virtue of an amendment made by Congress in 1847 which extended such authority over any new states admitted thereafter should be considered applicable here too. In conclusion Justice McLean believed that regardless of when or how they became part of our nation's union - all states are equally bound by federal statutes unless expressly exempted from them.