In the 1920 case of Blanset v. Cardin, a dispute arose over land ownership in Oklahoma between an adult citizen and a minor who was part of the Quapaw Tribe. The Supreme Court ruled that under federal law, specifically the Act of March 2, 1895, minors belonging to Native American tribes could not sell or lease their lands without approval from Congress or its appointed agent (usually the Secretary of Interior). This decision overturned previous rulings by lower courts which had favored Blanset's claim on grounds that he had leased it from Day-Light when she was still underage and without any congressional consent. The court held that such transactions were null and void as they violated federal laws aimed at protecting tribal members' property rights especially those incapable of safeguarding their interests due to age or other factors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Blanset v. Cardin argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of federal law regarding Native American guardianship and property rights. The dissent emphasized that under existing laws, a guardian could not sell or lease a minor's land without approval from the Secretary of Interior, regardless if they were appointed by state or tribal courts. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of property (real estate vs personal) were treated under these rules. Furthermore, it was noted that while Congress had authority to regulate commerce with Native tribes, this did not extend to overriding their internal affairs such as appointing guardians for minors' properties. Therefore, according to the dissenters', federal law should have been interpreted more narrowly so as not to infringe upon tribal sovereignty and individual rights.