United States v. Lane was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the federal government had the authority to prosecute a crime committed on an Indian reservation. The case involved a man named John Lane, who was accused of murdering another man on the Uintah Indian Reservation in Utah. Lane argued that the federal government did not have the authority to prosecute him because the crime was committed on an Indian reservation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, holding that the federal government had the authority to prosecute crimes committed on Indian reservations. The Court reasoned that the federal government had the power to protect the Indians from violence and to enforce the laws of the United States on Indian reservations. The Court also noted that the federal government had the power to regulate commerce with the Indians, which included the power to punish those who committed crimes on Indian reservations. The Court's decision in United States v. Lane established the federal government's authority to prosecute crimes committed on Indian reservations. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the federal government's authority to prosecute crimes committed on Indian reservations.

In United States v. Lane, the Supreme Court considered whether Congress had the power to punish a crime committed on an Indian reservation without first obtaining tribal consent. The majority opinion held that Congress did have this authority, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that such a decision would be in direct violation of both treaty obligations and established principles of international law which prohibit one nation from exercising jurisdiction over another without its consent. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress were allowed to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians within their own reservations it could potentially lead to further encroachments upon their sovereignty and property rights by other branches of government as well. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such action would not only be unconstitutional but also unjust given the long history between Native Americans and the federal government