In the case of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota v. United States (1938), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Chippewa Tribe, stating that they were entitled to compensation from the U.S. government for land taken under an 1889 agreement. The tribe argued that this agreement was not a sale but rather a cession, meaning they retained certain rights to their ancestral lands and resources therein. They claimed that these rights had been violated by logging operations conducted without their consent or proper compensation. The court agreed with them, holding that even though Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs, it does not have absolute discretion to deny just compensation for property taken from tribes under such agreements.

In the dissenting opinion for Chippewa Indians of Minnesota v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply relevant treaties and statutes. The dissenting justices believed that these legal documents clearly established a trust relationship between the U.S government and the Chippewa tribe, obligating federal authorities to manage tribal lands in ways beneficial to its members. They contended that this fiduciary duty had been breached when timber from reservation land was sold without ensuring fair compensation for the tribe or considering their welfare. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated by only taking into account profits made from timber sales rather than also including potential losses suffered by tribal members due to depletion of resources on their land. In conclusion, they felt that justice had not been served as there was insufficient consideration given towards protecting indigenous rights and interests in accordance with treaty obligations.