In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. George J.F. Clarke, the court was asked to decide whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a state supreme court decision involving land claims in Florida that were granted by Spain prior to cession of the territory to the United States. The appellant argued that because these grants originated with Spain and not with any act of Congress, they could only be adjudicated in state courts and not in federal district courts as provided for under U.S law at that time. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that although it is true that Spanish grants are subject to confirmation or rejection by Congress alone, this does not mean they cannot also be reviewed by federal district courts when necessary for their enforcement or protection against frauds committed upon them; therefore, such cases can properly come before those tribunals if there is no other adequate remedy available elsewhere within our judicial system .

In the case of The United States v. George J. F. Clarke, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an indictment for murder committed in Indian territory by a non-Indian against another non-Indian on land owned by Indians and subject to their exclusive occupancy under treaty with the United States government. Chief Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Congress did not have authority to extend criminal laws into Indian country without first obtaining consent from tribal governments or making treaties with them granting such power, as required by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which states that Congress has power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with Indian Tribes”. He argued that because no such treaty existed between Congress and any tribe regarding this matter at issue here, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation extending its criminal law into Indian Country without first obtaining consent from tribal governments or making treaties granting such power; thus he concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction in this case since they were attempting to exercise powers beyond those granted them by either statute or constitutional provision