In the 1894 case of Wright and Wade v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving two men who were convicted for murder in Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). The defendants argued that they should not have been tried under federal law because their alleged crime occurred within an independent Native American nation's jurisdiction. However, the court upheld their convictions by affirming that Congress had authority over such territories through its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among various states and with Indian tribes as per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it was determined that while certain rights are granted to Native American tribes as domestic dependent nations, these do not include complete sovereignty free from congressional regulation or oversight especially when public safety is concerned.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wright and Wade v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold convictions for selling liquor without a license on Native American reservations was incorrect. The dissent contended that Congress did not have authority over such matters, as they were within state jurisdiction, based on an interpretation of the Constitution which limited federal power over interstate commerce. It also pointed out inconsistencies with previous rulings where similar activities had been deemed outside congressional control when occurring within individual states' borders. Furthermore, it questioned whether Native American tribes could be considered "foreign nations" under constitutional law - if not, then laws regulating trade with them would fall outside Congress's purview too. Finally, it suggested that even if these tribes were foreign nations in some sense, this should only give Congress power to regulate international trade involving them rather than domestic transactions like those at issue here.