The United States brought a case against Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, defendants, in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute concerned an 1837 treaty between the U.S. government and certain Native American tribes that granted rights to navigate on rivers within their territories for commercial purposes such as trading goods with other nations or transporting passengers from one place to another. The defendants argued that they had acquired exclusive navigation rights over these rivers by virtue of prior grants made by Spain before it ceded Florida to the U.S., while the plaintiff maintained that its own grant was superior due to its later date and more comprehensive scope of authority over navigable waters in Indian territory than those previously granted by Spain alone. After considering both sides' arguments, Chief Justice Taney delivered a unanimous opinion affirming the right of Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among several states even when this involves navigating through Indian country without interference from private parties who may have obtained earlier grants from foreign powers like Spain; thus upholding federal supremacy over state law in matters concerning interstate commerce involving Indians living within their tribal boundaries

In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws concerning navigation on navigable waters within a state's boundaries. The dissenters believed that this power was reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment, and thus any federal law attempting to regulate such activities would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, they argued that even if Congress did have some limited authority in this area, it could not extend beyond what is necessary for regulating interstate commerce or protecting public health and safety; however, they felt that these two exceptions were not applicable in this particular case since there was no evidence of either being threatened by King and Coxe’s actions on navigable waters within their own state’s borders. Therefore, according to them Congress had exceeded its constitutional limits with respect to passing laws regarding navigation on navigable waters within a state's boundaries without proper justification or cause.