In the case of Cherokee Nation and United States v. Whitmire, Trustee for Freedmen of the Cherokee Nation (1911), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether descendants of freed slaves, known as "Freedmen," who had been adopted into the Cherokee tribe after emancipation were entitled to a share in tribal lands under an 1866 treaty between the Cherokees and US government. The court ruled that these Freedmen did indeed have rights to land allotments within tribal territory. This decision was based on their interpretation that when Congress approved this treaty it intended for all members of the tribe - including former slaves and their descendants - to be treated equally in terms of property distribution. Therefore, despite opposition from some factions within the Cherokee nation who argued against inclusionary rights for non-blood members, this ruling affirmed that Freedman were legally recognized as citizens with full membership benefits.

In the dissenting opinion for Cherokee Nation and United States v. Whitmire, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's interpretation of treaties between the U.S. government and Cherokee Nation regarding rights of freedmen (former slaves). He argued that these agreements did not grant permanent membership in the tribe to freedmen or their descendants but rather provided them temporary protection until they could establish themselves independently. According to him, this was a matter of tribal sovereignty; it should be up to each Native American nation to determine its own citizenship rules without interference from federal courts unless there is clear evidence that those rules violate U.S law or treaty obligations.