In the United States v. Young case of 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Territory. The defendant, Mr. Young, was charged with introducing and selling liquor in this territory which was against federal law at that time. He argued that he should not be prosecuted under federal law because Oklahoma had become a state since his indictment and thus it no longer fell within exclusive Federal jurisdiction as an "Indian country". However, the court held that even though Oklahoma had gained statehood status after his indictment but before his trial commenced; it did not change or affect the nature of crime or its prosecution process as per existing laws when crime occurred i.e., while still being an Indian Territory under exclusive Federal control for such matters. Therefore, Mr.Young's conviction by lower courts were upheld by Supreme Court stating that changes to political boundaries do not retroactively alter legal jurisdictions for past crimes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Young, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's actions did not constitute a violation of the Sherman Act. He contended that while Young had indeed entered into contracts with other companies to fix prices and restrict competition, these agreements were part of a legitimate business strategy aimed at ensuring his company's survival in an increasingly competitive market. Furthermore, he pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that these arrangements had resulted in any harm or disadvantage to consumers or competitors. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of the law, Young's conduct should not be considered illegal under the terms of the Sherman Act.