In the United States v. Freeman case of 1915, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a crime committed on an Indian reservation by a non-Indian against another non-Indian. The defendant, Freeman, was charged with manslaughter for killing another man while both were living and working on an Indian reservation in South Dakota. He argued that since both he and his victim were not tribal members, they fell under state rather than federal jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that Congress has exclusive authority to regulate commerce with Native American tribes which includes crimes committed within their territories regardless of who commits them or whom they are committed against. Therefore it ruled that Federal courts do have jurisdiction over such cases.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Freeman, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law regarding fraudulent intent in mail fraud cases. He argued that a person could be guilty of defrauding even if they did not intend to cause harm or loss to another party. According to him, it was enough that one knowingly and willingly deceived others through false representations via mail, regardless of whether they intended any actual injury or not. The focus should be on the act itself rather than its potential consequences as per his view. Thus, he believed that Freeman should have been convicted based on these grounds.