In the 1912 case Wheeler v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American could be tried and punished by both tribal courts and federal courts for the same crime without violating double jeopardy protections in the Fifth Amendment. The court reasoned that because Indian tribes were separate sovereigns with inherent powers of self-government, they had jurisdiction to punish their members for criminal offenses. Therefore, prosecution by both tribal and federal authorities did not constitute successive prosecutions by "the same sovereign." This decision has been criticized as inconsistent with principles of fairness embodied in double jeopardy doctrine but remains good law today.

In the dissenting opinion for Wheeler v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's actions did not constitute a crime under federal law. He contended that while Wheeler may have violated tribal law by marrying two women from his tribe, he did not violate any federal statute because polygamy was only illegal in U.S territories and Washington D.C., but not within Indian reservations which are considered sovereign nations. Therefore, according to Holmes, it was inappropriate for the federal government to prosecute him as they lacked jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian land unless explicitly granted by Congress. This view emphasizes respect for tribal sovereignty and argues against an expansive interpretation of federal criminal jurisdiction.