The U.S Supreme Court case, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government et al., 1997, revolved around the issue of whether lands owned by an Alaskan native tribe could be classified as "Indian country" under federal law. The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government had sued the State of Alaska for taxing contractors who were building a school on tribal land. They argued that their territory was exempt from state taxation because it constituted Indian Country under federal law. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them in a unanimous decision stating that after Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 which extinguished all aboriginal claims to Alaskan land and did not create any new reservations but instead conveyed fee simple title to various native corporations; these lands no longer qualified as Indian Country since they were neither federally set aside nor superintended by the Federal government.

In the dissenting opinion for Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the majority's interpretation of "Indian country" was too narrow and failed to consider important historical and practical considerations. He contended that Congress intended a broader definition when it passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which aimed to resolve land claims by Alaskan Natives in a way that would promote their economic self-sufficiency and cultural survival. The majority's decision, he believed, undermined these goals by denying tribal governments jurisdiction over their lands unless they were specifically set aside as reservations or dependent Indian communities under federal law. This approach ignored the unique circumstances of Alaskan Natives who lived on ANCSA lands but did not have formal reservations due to historical reasons rather than lack of tribal organization or connection with their lands.