In the United States vs. Robertson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could tax federal land within its boundaries. The case arose when James Robertson purchased a tract of federally owned land in Georgia and refused to pay taxes on it. He argued that since he did not own the property, but merely held an interest in it as an agent of the federal government, he should be exempt from taxation by Georgia. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled against him, holding that states have authority to impose taxes on all lands within their borders regardless of ownership or titleholder status. This decision established precedent for future cases involving taxation of federal lands and affirmed states' rights over such matters.

In United States v. Robertson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor in Indian country applied to an individual who had purchased whiskey from a trader and then sold it within Indian country. The majority opinion held that the statute did apply, but Justice Story dissented on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress lacked authority under the Constitution to regulate commerce with Indians; second, he asserted that even if Congress had such power, this particular law was too vague and indefinite for individuals to understand what conduct was forbidden or allowed. He concluded by noting his belief that "the laws should be so plain as not only to define what is criminal...but also so clear as not easily admit of doubt."