In the United States v. Cadarr case of 1904, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning immigration law and its application to individuals with criminal records. The defendant, Mr. Cadarr, was an immigrant who had been convicted of grand larceny in New York and served his sentence before being released back into society. However, he was later arrested again under federal law which allowed for deportation of immigrants who committed crimes within five years after their arrival in America. The issue at hand was whether or not this law could be applied retroactively; that is if it could affect those whose crimes were committed prior to its enactment. In a unanimous decision by Justice Brewer delivering the opinion of the court, it held that laws are presumed to operate prospectively unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise - something they hadn't done so here. Therefore, since Mr.Cadarr's crime occurred before this particular immigration statute came into effect (and there wasn't any clear indication from Congress about retrospective operation), he couldn't be deported based on it.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Cadarr case argued that the defendant, who was convicted for selling liquor without a license on an Indian reservation, should not be held liable under federal law because he had obtained a state license to sell alcohol. The justice contended that since the offense occurred within a state and not on federally owned land, it fell under state jurisdiction rather than federal authority. He further asserted that there was no explicit provision in any treaty or act of Congress prohibiting such sales by licensed individuals within their own states. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate for federal courts to assume jurisdiction over matters traditionally reserved for individual states based solely on general principles of Indian protectionism without clear legislative guidance.