In the United States v. Davis case of 1916, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Native American reservations. The defendant, William Davis, was convicted for selling whiskey to an individual in Indian Country - a violation of federal law at that time. However, he appealed his conviction arguing that since the crime took place within Oklahoma (a state), it should be under state jurisdiction rather than federal. The Supreme Court disagreed with Davis's argument and upheld his conviction stating that Congress has exclusive authority over offenses committed in "Indian country," regardless if they are located within states' boundaries or not. This decision reinforced the power of Federal law enforcement agencies to prosecute crimes occurring on tribal lands and further clarified Congressional powers regarding Native American affairs.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Davis, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute that criminalized false statements made to influence banks' actions. He argued that the law should only apply when there is an intent to defraud and not merely because a falsehood was told. According to him, if Congress intended for every lie told in banking transactions to be punishable by law, it would have explicitly stated so in its legislation. Furthermore, he believed that interpreting this statute as broadly as the majority did could lead to unjust results where individuals are punished severely for minor misrepresentations or innocent mistakes without any fraudulent intent. Thus, he dissented from his colleagues who upheld Davis's conviction under this federal law.