In the United States v. Salambie case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving taxation and tribal sovereignty. The defendant, Salambie, was a member of an Indian tribe who had been taxed for selling liquor without a license on tribal land in Oklahoma Territory. He argued that as he was operating within his own tribe's jurisdiction, U.S federal laws did not apply to him. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that while tribes have certain rights to self-governance under U.S law; they are still subject to Congress' plenary power over Indian affairs which includes imposing taxes even within reservation boundaries if it deems necessary for their welfare or protection against frauds and abuses. Therefore, the court upheld Salambie's conviction ruling that he was indeed liable for tax evasion under federal law despite conducting business on tribal land.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Salambie case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for selling liquor without a license on Indian territory was flawed. The dissent contended that federal law did not apply because the crime occurred within an Indian reservation, which should be considered sovereign territory under U.S jurisdiction but outside of state control. They believed this sovereignty meant tribal laws and regulations were paramount, making it inappropriate for federal courts to intervene unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Therefore, they disagreed with applying non-Indian specific legislation like general liquor licensing requirements onto reservations without clear Congressional intent. This view emphasized respect for tribal autonomy and legal pluralism within American jurisprudence.