In the case of United States v. Wheeler et al., 1920, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue concerning tribal sovereignty and double jeopardy. The defendant, a Navajo man named Kelsey Wheeler, was charged with adultery under both federal law and Navajo tribal law for his relationship with another tribe member's wife. He argued that being prosecuted twice for the same crime violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy. However, the court held that since Indian tribes are separate sovereigns from U.S government - they have inherent powers not derived from states or federal government - they can prosecute their members independently of any prosecution by state or federal authorities without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Wheeler case argued that the defendants, who were charged with conspiracy to obstruct commerce by extortion under the Hobbs Act, should not have been convicted because their actions did not actually interfere with interstate commerce. The dissenters believed that there was no evidence of actual or potential economic harm resulting from the defendants' alleged conduct and thus it could not be considered a violation of federal law. They also expressed concern about an overly broad interpretation of the Hobbs Act which they felt could potentially criminalize any disruptive labor activity, infringing on workers' rights to protest and strike for better conditions. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view regarding jurisdictional issues; arguing instead that state courts are more appropriate venues for such cases as this one involving local union activities.