In the 1912 case of Athanasaw and Sampson v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over fishing rights in Alaskan waters. The appellants, Athanasaw and Sampson, were Alaska Natives who had been convicted for violating federal regulations that prohibited them from catching salmon during certain periods. They argued that these restrictions violated their traditional Native American fishing rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld their convictions. The court ruled that while Native Americans do have special hunting and fishing privileges under U.S law, these privileges are not absolute or unrestricted; they can be regulated by Congress to conserve wildlife resources. This decision was significant because it confirmed the government's power to regulate natural resource use on public lands even when such regulation impacts traditional indigenous practices.

In the dissenting opinion for Athanasaw and Sampson v. United States, Justice Hughes argued that the defendants were not given a fair trial as they were denied their constitutional right to confront witnesses against them. He believed that the lower court erred in allowing testimonies from absent witnesses who had testified at previous trials but did not appear at this one due to death or inability to be located. The justice emphasized that these depositions should have been excluded because they violated the Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the jury. He also disagreed with majority's view on "dying declarations," arguing it was improper to admit such evidence when there was no indication whether declarant knew about his impending death while making those statements.