In the case of Antoine et ux. v. Washington in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a treaty between Native American tribes and the federal government did not grant exclusive fishing rights to tribal members on off-reservation lands. The Squaxin Island Tribe argued that an 1854 treaty with the United States gave them special hunting and fishing privileges outside their reservation boundaries, which were being violated by state regulations limiting their catch sizes and seasons for steelhead trout in non-reservation waters. However, Justice William O Douglas delivered a unanimous decision stating that while treaties should be interpreted as they would have been understood by tribal leaders at signing time, there was no evidence suggesting these particular rights were intended to extend beyond reservation borders unless explicitly stated otherwise within the treaty itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Antoine et ux. v. Washington, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's interpretation of the treaty was incorrect and unfair to Native Americans. He believed that their fishing rights were not limited by state regulation unless explicitly stated in a treaty or federal statute, which was not the case here. Furthermore, he contended that these rights should be interpreted as they would have been understood by tribal leaders at the time of signing - as granting them unrestricted access to traditional fishing grounds without interference from non-tribal authorities. In his view, this understanding is supported by historical evidence and previous court rulings on similar issues involving hunting and gathering rights granted under treaties with other tribes.