The legal dispute was more technical than that slogan, but the underlying conflict was exactly as disturbing as it sounds.

Federal habeas corpus law protected “persons” who were unlawfully restrained.

The government argued that Standing Bear, as an Indian under federal authority, did not fall within the meaning of “person” for purposes of the statute in the way his attorneys claimed.

That argument placed the government in a logically uncomfortable position.

It asserted enough authority over Standing Bear to arrest him, confine him, and transport him hundreds of miles.

At the same time, it denied that he possessed the ordinary legal status necessary to ask a federal judge whether the imprisonment was lawful.