In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Lindsey Nickerson, Junior, the plaintiff argued that a certain tract of land in Maine was part of the public domain and should be subject to taxation by Congress. The defendant claimed that he had purchased this same tract from an Indian tribe and thus it belonged to him as private property. After examining both sides' arguments, the court found in favor of Nickerson on two grounds: firstly, because his purchase from an Indian tribe was valid under existing law; secondly, because Congress did not have authority over lands held by Indians prior to their cession or sale. As such, they ruled that Nickerson's title was good and he could not be taxed for owning it.

In the case of United States v. Lindsey Nickerson, Junior, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a person who had been convicted in a state court for an offense that would have been considered piracy under federal law could be tried again by the federal government for that same crime. The majority opinion held that such double jeopardy did not apply and thus allowed for Nickerson to be tried again on those charges. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling and argued that it violated both common sense and established legal precedent which prohibited double jeopardy in cases where there is no difference between state and federal laws regarding an offense. He further noted how allowing multiple prosecutions based solely on different jurisdictions undermined public confidence in justice as well as creating potential conflicts between states over their respective criminal codes. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that Congress should pass legislation to address this issue rather than relying upon judicial interpretation of existing statutes or constitutional provisions.