In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Michael Moore, the appellant argued that a state court had no jurisdiction to try an indictment for murder committed by an Indian on another Indian within the limits of a reservation in California. The respondent countered that since Congress had not extended criminal laws over Indians living on reservations, then any crime committed between two Indians was subject only to tribal law and could not be tried in state courts. After much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled against Moore and held that when Congress has not extended its criminal laws over Indians living on reservations, then any crimes they commit are subject only to tribal law and cannot be tried in state courts.

In the United States v. Michael Moore, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that prohibited anyone from knowingly bringing into the country any person who had been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year applied to an individual who had been pardoned for such a conviction. The majority opinion held that it did not, as there was no evidence indicating Congress intended to punish those individuals already pardoned for their crimes. Justice McLean dissented on this point and argued that since Congress clearly stated its intention to prohibit all persons convicted of certain offenses from entering the country regardless of pardon status, then Moore should be subject to prosecution under this law. He further noted that if Congress wanted exceptions made for those already pardoned they would have included language explicitly stating so within the text of the statute itself.