In United States v. Hatch, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor on Indian reservations was constitutional. The defendant, Hatch, was charged with violating the statute by selling liquor on an Indian reservation. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, finding that Congress had the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations. The Court also held that the statute did not violate the defendant's right to due process, as the statute was not overly broad or vague. The Court further held that the statute did not violate the defendant's right to equal protection, as the statute was not discriminatory. The Court concluded that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations.

Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Hatch, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass legislation which would allow for criminal prosecution of an individual who was not subject to any existing law at the time they committed their offense. He argued that such a law violated due process and constituted an ex post facto punishment, as it applied retroactively to punish someone for something they did before the law existed. Furthermore, he noted that this type of legislative action could lead to arbitrary punishments and should be avoided if possible. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that Congress lacked the power to enact laws punishing individuals for acts committed prior to its passage and thus found fault with this particular statute's application in this case.