In the case of Armstrong et al. v. United States, 1959, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government regarding a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The plaintiffs were Tlingit and Haida Indians who claimed that they had aboriginal title to certain lands which were taken from them by the United States without compensation. They sought payment for these lands under the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The court held that while it was true that indigenous tribes have rights to their ancestral lands based on aboriginal possession, this did not equate to full property rights as understood within Western legal tradition. Therefore, when such tribal lands are incorporated into territories or states of U.S., those native claims do not necessarily need to be compensated under Fifth Amendment because they don't constitute "property" in a traditional sense. This decision underscored how American law often struggled with recognizing and reconciling indigenous peoples' unique relationship with their ancestral territories within its own legal framework.

In the dissenting opinion for Armstrong et al. v. United States, Justice Whittaker disagreed with the majority's view that a landowner is entitled to compensation when his property value decreases due to government-induced flooding, even if it’s not permanent or recurring. He argued that such an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was too broad and could potentially lead to excessive claims against the government for any action causing temporary damage or inconvenience. Furthermore, he contended that previous case law did not support this expansive reading of "taking." Instead, he believed only physical invasions resulting in permanent occupancy by the government should be considered as takings deserving compensation under constitutional provisions.