In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. A. Hodge and Levi Pearce, two men were charged with violating a federal law that prohibited white persons from living on Indian lands without permission from Congress or the President of the United States. The defendants argued that they had purchased their land in good faith and did not know it was part of an Indian reservation when they bought it, but this argument was rejected by the court who found them guilty as charged. In its decision, the court held that ignorance of a law is no excuse for breaking it and affirmed their conviction under federal statute prohibiting white persons from residing on Indian lands without authorization from Congress or the President.

In the case of The United States v. A. Hodge and Levi Pearce, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not a state court had jurisdiction to try two individuals for an alleged crime committed on Indian land that was ceded by treaty to the United States government. Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that states do have jurisdiction over crimes committed on lands ceded by treaty to the federal government as long as those lands are within their boundaries and subject to their laws. He stated that while Congress has exclusive authority over Indian affairs, it does not extend so far as to exclude all state power from such territories; rather, it is limited only insofar as necessary for carrying out its own regulations concerning Indians and Indian tribes living thereon. Furthermore, he asserted that if Congress intended otherwise they would have expressed this intention more clearly in treaties or other legislation governing these areas of land.