The U.S. Supreme Court case Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Joe Shirley, Jr., et al., 2000 revolved around the issue of whether a tribal government could impose a hotel occupancy tax on non-tribal members staying at a privately owned hotel located within reservation boundaries but not held in trust by the federal government for the tribe's benefit. The Navajo Nation had imposed such a tax and Atkinson Trading Company challenged it as an infringement upon their rights under federal law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atkinson Trading Company, stating that while tribes do have sovereign power to govern themselves and manage internal affairs without interference from states, this does not extend to imposing taxes on non-members who are using property that is privately owned rather than tribally or federally controlled. The court found no legal justification for allowing such taxation without representation or consent from those being taxed.

In the dissenting opinion for Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Joe Shirley, Jr., et al., Justice Souter argued that the majority's decision to strike down a hotel occupancy tax imposed by the Navajo Nation on non-tribal members staying at a hotel within its reservation was incorrect. He contended that tribal sovereignty should allow tribes to impose such taxes without needing express authorization from Congress or an agreement with the state government. The justice believed this case represented an opportunity for Native American tribes to exercise their inherent sovereign powers and generate revenue independently of federal funding sources - crucial for self-determination and economic development efforts in Indian Country. In his view, denying them this right undermines their ability to govern themselves effectively.