In the 1902 case of Blackfeather v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving Native American land rights. The plaintiff, Blackfeather, was an Ojibwe Indian who claimed ownership over certain lands in Minnesota under an 1855 treaty between his tribe and the federal government. However, this claim conflicted with another treaty from 1863 that ceded these same lands to the United States without providing individual allotments to tribal members like Blackfeather. The court held that while treaties should be interpreted as they would have been understood by the Indians at their signing time, there was no evidence suggesting any misunderstanding about land allocation in this case. Therefore, it upheld lower courts' rulings denying Blackfeather's claims and affirmed that he did not hold title to these disputed lands.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Blackfeather v. United States argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to adequately consider tribal sovereignty and autonomy. The justices who dissented believed that Native American tribes should be viewed as separate, sovereign entities with their own laws and customs, rather than being subject to federal law. They contended that by imposing federal law on tribal matters, the court was infringing upon these rights and undermining the independence of Native American tribes. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts this ruling could have on future relations between U.S government and indigenous nations; fearing it might set a dangerous precedent for further erosion of tribal sovereignty.