In the United States v. Pelican case of 1913, the Supreme Court ruled that a crime committed by an Indian on an Indian reservation could be prosecuted by federal authorities even if it had already been tried in tribal court. The defendant, John Pelican, was convicted of manslaughter in a tribal court and later indicted for the same offense under U.S law. He argued this constituted double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same crime - which is prohibited under the Fifth Amendment to Constitution. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, held that since tribes were dependent nations within U.S jurisdiction rather than foreign entities or states within its borders; therefore their courts did not have status equal to state or federal courts as far as double jeopardy was concerned.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Pelican, 1913, it was argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans on their own reservations unless explicitly granted by Congress. The dissenting justices believed that tribal sovereignty should be respected and maintained unless specifically overridden by legislation. They contended that the majority's interpretation of existing laws to grant such jurisdiction was incorrect and constituted an unwarranted intrusion into tribal affairs. This view held a strong belief in upholding traditional principles of Native American self-governance and autonomy within their designated territories or reservations.