In United States v. Carey & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to bring a criminal prosecution against two individuals for the alleged violation of a federal statute. The two individuals, Carey and another, had been indicted for the alleged violation of a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor in Indian country. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to bring a criminal prosecution against the two individuals. The Court reasoned that the federal statute in question was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, and that the United States had the right to enforce the statute. The Court also held that the United States had the right to bring a criminal prosecution against the two individuals, even though they were not members of an Indian tribe. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to bring a criminal prosecution against the two individuals for the alleged violation of a federal statute. The Court reasoned that the federal statute in question was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, and that the United States had the right to enforce the statute. The Court also held that the United States had the right to bring a criminal prosecution against the two individuals, even though they were not members of an Indian tribe.

In United States v. Carey & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers in relation to customs duties. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had given federal courts exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions by boards of appraisers concerning customs duties and therefore should be allowed to hear this case as well. He noted that while there may be some ambiguity in how Congress intended for these appeals to proceed, he believed it would be more consistent with congressional intent if they were heard by federal courts rather than state or local ones. Furthermore, he argued that allowing state or local courts to handle these cases could lead to unequal treatment depending on where one lived since different states might interpret laws differently when deciding similar cases involving customs duties.