In the United States v. Adam Randenbush, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against someone from the same other state in which it occurred. The case arose when Adam Randenbush, a resident of Pennsylvania, sued John McIlvaine in New Jersey for breach of contract and obtained judgment there. McIlvaine then moved to have that judgment set aside on grounds that he was not properly served with process and thus did not receive due notice or opportunity to defend himself as required by law. The Supreme Court held that although states are generally prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over citizens of other states under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, this prohibition does not extend so far as to prevent them from adjudicating controversies between their own citizens arising within their borders; therefore, New Jersey had proper jurisdiction over this dispute between two non-residents who were both domiciled elsewhere at the time suit was filed.

In the case of United States v. Adam Randenbush, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws regulating the sale and transportation of liquor within Indian country. He stated that such legislation was beyond Congress’s power under the Constitution and should be left to state legislatures or other local authorities. Furthermore, he argued that even if it were within Congress’s power, this particular law was too vague as it did not clearly define what constituted “Indian Country” or how far its jurisdiction extended into states bordering Indian lands. Lastly, Justice McLean contended that since Indians are considered citizens of their respective tribes rather than citizens of any particular state or nation they should have been allowed to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption on tribal land without interference from outside forces like the federal government.