In the case of United States v. George, 1912, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and rights under Native American law. The defendant, William H. George had purchased land from an individual who was part Otoe Indian and part white but was not recognized as a member of any tribe by the U.S government or himself. The court held that since he did not belong to any tribe nor was he considered an Indian by his community or himself, he could sell his inherited reservation lands without approval from Congress despite being half Otoe Indian by bloodline. This ruling clarified that tribal membership status rather than racial heritage determined whether Congressional approval is required for selling inherited reservation lands.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. George, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law and its application to this case. He argued that there was no clear evidence proving that George had intended to defraud anyone when he made false statements about his assets while applying for a loan from a national bank. According to Holmes, it was not enough just to show that George lied; it also needed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did so with fraudulent intent. The justice believed this requirement hadn't been met in this case because there were plausible reasons why George might have overstated his wealth without intending any fraud – such as simple pride or carelessness. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' view, convicting him under these circumstances would constitute an unjust expansion of criminal liability.