The United States brought an appeal against Claude Chana, William Martin, Thomas P. Turner and Albert Rowe for the alleged violation of a law that prohibited citizens from trading with Native Americans without permission from the government. The defendants argued that they had obtained such permission by way of a treaty between their tribe and the United States which allowed them to trade freely with other tribes in exchange for goods or services. The Supreme Court held that while treaties are binding on both parties, they do not supersede laws passed by Congress unless specifically stated in said treaty; therefore, since there was no mention of this particular law within the treaty itself it could not be used as justification for violating it. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the United States and found all four defendants guilty as charged.

In the United States v. Claude Chana, William Martin, Thomas P. Turner and Albert Rowe, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that prohibited trading with Native Americans in certain territories applied to individuals who had already entered into contracts with them prior to its enactment. The majority opinion held that it did not apply retroactively and thus could not be used against those who had already made such agreements before the law took effect. However, Justice Grier dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly he argued that Congress has authority under Article I of the Constitution to pass laws which are applicable both prospectively and retrospectively; secondly he maintained that since these particular contracts were illegal at their inception they should still be subject to prosecution even if they predated the new law's passage. He concluded by stating his belief that "the power of Congress over Indian tribes is paramount" and therefore any contract made between them must conform strictly with all existing statutes or else face criminal penalties regardless of when it was formed.