In the United States v. Wilson case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Native American reservations. The defendant, William Wilson, was charged with murdering another member of his tribe within reservation boundaries in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). He argued that since he and his victim were both members of an indigenous tribe living on a reservation, they should be subject to tribal law rather than federal law. However, the court disagreed and upheld federal jurisdiction over major crimes committed by or against Native Americans within their own territories under the Major Crimes Act passed by Congress in 1885. This act extended Federal criminal laws to certain serious offenses like murder even if they occurred between Indians on Indian land. Therefore, it affirmed Wilson's conviction for murder.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Wilson, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a defendant to waive his right to appeal was inconsistent with principles of justice and public policy. He contended that it is not in the interest of society or justice for a person convicted of a crime by an inferior court to be able to prevent their case from being reviewed by higher courts simply because they choose not to appeal. This could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice if errors made at trial are never corrected due its waiver by defendant himself/herself. Furthermore, he believed this ruling undermined the role and authority of appellate courts in ensuring fair trials and upholding legal standards.