In the 1913 case United States v. Sandoval, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had authority to regulate alcohol in Native American reservations under its constitutional power to regulate commerce with Native tribes and protect their welfare. The defendant, a member of Santa Clara Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, was convicted for introducing alcohol into Indian country - an act prohibited by federal law. He appealed on grounds that this law did not apply as his tribe lived within a territory rather than reservation and they were citizens of New Mexico since it became a state in 1912. However, the court rejected these arguments stating that despite changes in territorial status or citizenship rights granted to individual Indians or tribes, they still remained "a separate people" with limitations placed upon them due to their dependent position which required protection against themselves as well as from others.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sandoval, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold federal laws prohibiting alcohol sales on Native American reservations was based on an outdated and paternalistic view of Native Americans as "wards" of the government. He contended that this perspective failed to recognize their capacity for self-governance and violated their rights under the Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Congress' power over Indian affairs, arguing it did not extend to imposing such restrictions without a clear constitutional or statutory basis. In his view, while protecting individuals from harm is a legitimate governmental interest, it does not justify infringing upon personal liberties in this manner unless there is compelling evidence demonstrating its necessity.