In the Cherokee Intermarriage Cases: Red Bird v. United States (1906), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether non-Cherokee individuals who had married into the Cherokee Nation were entitled to share in tribal property and assets. The case arose from a dispute over an 1895 law passed by the Cherokee Nation that sought to exclude these "intermarried whites" from sharing in proceeds derived from communal lands, which contradicted previous laws allowing such rights. The court ruled against Red Bird, upholding the validity of this law and stating that it did not violate any treaty between the U.S government and Cherokee Nation or infringe upon federal legislation. This decision effectively denied many intermarried individuals their claims on tribal resources.

In the dissenting opinion for the Cherokee Intermarriage Cases: Red Bird v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold laws prohibiting intermarriage between Cherokees and non-Cherokees violated individual rights. The dissenters believed that these laws were discriminatory and unjustly interfered with personal freedoms, particularly in relation to marriage and family life. They contended that such restrictions on marital choices based on race or ethnicity were inconsistent with principles of equality under law as enshrined in U.S Constitution. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts of this ruling on social harmony within Cherokee communities by exacerbating racial tensions and divisions. In their view, legal recognition of marriages should not be determined by racial or ethnic criteria but rather by mutual consent between two adults willing to commit themselves to each other.